Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday, 29th October.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order read for consideration, as amended.

To be considered upon Thursday, 29th October.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Comprehensive Education

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations she had with representatives of the teaching profession before withdrawing circular 1065.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I have nothing to add to my speech in the House on 8th July.—[Vol 803, c. 676–88.]

Mrs. Short: I am glad that the right hon. Lady has now had discussions with members of the teaching profession. May we assume that this will be her future practice instead of rushing in and making statements beforehand? Can she say how many authorities have reacted to her

circular and how many will continue with comprehensive reorganisation?

Mrs. Thatcher: I cannot answer specifically the last question at the moment. I have had a number of representations, some from teaching staffs in schools. In the case of one school I had two petitions, one for and one against the circular.

Nursery Education

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals she has for the expansion of nursery education.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals she has for more nursery school provision.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): My right hon. Friend is aware of the need for more provision for under-fives and this will be considered together with other claims on resources for education and the other social services. Progress under the urban programme will continue in deprived areas.

Mrs. Short: Can the hon. Gentleman say what sort of increase is likely with the urban aid programme? In view of the fact that his Department is rather keen on withdrawing circulars and issuing new ones, is he now prepared to withdraw circular 8/60 and to allow local authorities freedom to set up nursery classes where they have the resources and teachers, because many are anxious to exercise this freedom?

Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Member will know that over 10,000 places have been approved in the first two phases of the urban aid programme. It would be premature to announce any withdrawal of the circular.

Mr. Edward Short: Would the hon. Gentleman not be more forthcoming? The Tory manifesto said:
We recognise the need for expansion of nursery education.
By how much is it to be expanded, where and when?

Mr. van Straubenzee: The right hon. Gentleman will see as the programme develops.

Liverpool (Secondary Education)

Mr. Ogden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals she has received from the Liverpool City Council for the organisation of secondary education in that city.

Mrs. Thatcher: None, Sir.

Mr. Ogden: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her Conservative colleagues who control the City Council of Liverpool have considered and are considering a system of secondary reorganisation based on a 12-plus examination? Will she save everyone a great deal of time, trouble and unnecessary anxiety by saying that she will not approve any system of reorganisation based on an examination at 12-plus?

Mrs. Thatcher: I cannot comment on any scheme which I have not received.

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order. In view of the extremely unsatisfactory answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Primary Schools (Size of Classes)

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will change the basis of a class size of 40 in the building of new primary schools and the conversion of old ones.

Mrs. Thatcher: Nothing in the Department's Regulations or practice requires new or remodelled primary schools to be designed for classes of 40 pupils.

Mr. Marks: Is the Secretary of State aware that local authorities having conversions and mergers of schools are working on a basis of 40 children per classroom? Will she instruct local authorities to reduce this number so that more classrooms will be needed for the same number of children?

Mrs. Thatcher: We are constantly remodelling schools. The building regulations are based on the number of places in the school and nothing in the Regulations requires authorities to design those spaces for a particular number of children in the class. Indeed, they usually have very open plans in these days.

Mr. Edward Short: What is the right hon. Lady's target for class size? Does

she accept the target which I set out at Swansea on 12th March this year, or does she still adhere to the 1965 National Advisory Council target?

Mrs. Thatcher: I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman set out a target, but, as usual, he did not provide the money for achieving it.

Mr. Short: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the previous Government increased the number of teachers in training by 86 per cent.? By what percentage will she increase the number of teachers?

Mrs. Thatcher: The limiting factor on class size now is not so much that of teacher supply as of capital resources for the extra space required.

Direct Grant Schools

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement about her policy towards the future of direct grant schools, and the Ursuline Convent School, Ilford, in particular.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement concerning her policy regarding the future of the direct grant schools.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans she has for assisting the direct-grant schools; and whether she will make a statement.

Mrs. Thatcher: It is our expressed intention to encourage the direct grant schools. I am at present in consultation with the Direct Grant Joint Committee. No formal proposals have been received about reorganising the Ursuline Convent School.

Mr. Iremonger: Is there any way in which the Minister can give a guarantee that the arrangements which she makes will not be "mucked up" in future by Socialist Governments?

Mrs. Thatcher: Unfortunately I cannot give that guarantee, but they will not, in my hon. Friend's vernacular, be "mucked up" by me.

Sir G. Nabarro: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement and


warmly welcome it. Will she embrace my view that the direct grant schools do not represent a divisive influence in our society? Therefore, will she do her utmost to encourage the high quality which such establishments engender?

Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, Sir.

Teacher Training (Information on Drugs)

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement about her policy on teacher training to enable schools to deal with the misuse of drugs.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Information on drugs usually forms part of health education at colleges of education.

Mr. Iremonger: What about information on moral standards?

Mr. van Straubenzee: The Question is about drugs, and it is about this that I am answering.

Comprehensive Schools

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a statement of policy on comprehensive schools.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Government's aim is to ensure that all pupils shall have full opportunities for secondary education suitable to their needs and abilities. Authorities will be freer to determine the shape of secondary provision in their areas.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on sticking to her principles and her election pledges. What principle will operate if a local authority, contrary to the Ministry's opinion and advice, decides to impose universal comprehensive education in its area?

Mrs. Thatcher: The question will come to the Department under Section 13 of the 1944 Act and the Minister will then have to decide the question in the light of all the circumstances, including the objections received.

Mr. Walden: Are not we right in assuming that the Minister's policy is that there should be local freedom in this matter and that she will not impose what one hon. Member opposite called her

advice in this matter but will allow local authorities to select as they see best?

Mrs. Thatcher: The policy is to restore the position under the 1944 Act. That was expressed in the debate on 8th July, when I spelt it out in detail.

Public Lending Right

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a statement of Government policy on the proposed public lending right.

Mrs. Thatcher: My noble Friend the Paymaster-General will be giving consideration to this proposal and will make a statement in due course.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. As the Government are concerned about the new poor, and as authors are a considerable portion of that new class, will she give urgent consideration to allowing authors to get a fair return on books which are borrowed from a public library?

Mrs. Thatcher: I will communicate what my right hon. Friend has said to my noble Friend, and I am sure that he will make a statement as soon as he can.

Grammar Schools (Selective Entry)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many grammar schools for boys or girls, or co-educational, in England and Wales continue to accept pupils subject only to the 11-plus examination or later entry, on a selective basis, calculated at the latest convenient date.

Mr. van Straubenzee: In January, 1969 there were 1,098 maintained grammar schools in England and Wales, 361 for boys, 373 for girls and 364 co-educational. All of them admitted pupils on a selective basis.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend accept at once that it would be impossible to convert this mass of secondary schools on to a comprehensive—and universally comprehensive—basis in any short length of time and that selectivity will have to continue for the foreseeable future on the


basis on which it is conducted at present or with relatively minor changes?

Mr. van Straubenzee: Yes, Sir. I attempted to make the same point in the debate on the Loyal Address, though not so eloquently.

Mr. Orme: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in a city such as Salford, where unfortunately selection is still practised, some schools at the last examinations had one grammar school pass while others had 60 to 70? Is not this deplorable and, because of this policy, are there not certain children in some areas who are precluded from any further education?

Mr. van Straubenzee: Whatever it may be, that particular matter is not a matter for the Department, and it is worth recalling that it took place under the policy of the last Government.

South Shields

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will confirm the school building programme already authorised for South Shields; and whether she will invite applications for additional capital works in areas of special social need.

Mr. van Straubenzee: School building programmes which have been approved do not require my right hon. Friend's confirmation. Local authorities were invited in June to submit by September proposals for minor capital works in areas of special social need under Phase III of the Urban Programme.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he intends to see a continuation of the very valuable authorisations for replacement of old schools which we had under the previous Administration and even to expand these in the future?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I hope that I made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that all proposals which have been approved do not require additional confirmation. I think that that gives the assurance which he requires.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a statement on the

proposals for secondary education reorganisation now before her Department.

Mrs. Thatcher: I understand that the hon. Gentleman intends this Question to refer only to South Shields. I am informed that the authority, at its meeting on 29th July, will decide whether it wishes the Department to consider further the proposals now before it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the right hon. Lady prepared to accept proposals which would set back the whole agreement which has been reached in this town after long discussion and argument and which would result in the acceptance of continued selection at 11-plus?

Mrs. Thatcher: When the authority has let us know what it wishes to happen, we will consider the proposals.

Independent Schools

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, whether, in the interests of educational freedom, she will take steps to increase the number of schools which cannot be interfered with by her Department or local authorities.

Mrs. Thatcher: I believe in a healthy independent sector. Schools which are not maintained by local education authorities are subject to the provisions of Part III of the Education Act, 1944 or of the Direct Grant School Regulations 1959.

Mr. King: May I assume that my right hon. Friend will re-emphasise the desirability of a strong independent sector in the interests of educational advance and experiment? Will she confirm that one child independently educated saves the Treasury about £1,500?

Mrs. Thatcher: I could not confirm the specific amount, but apart from that the answer is "Yes" to both parts of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

Mr. Marks: Will the right hon. Lady investigate those schools where unqualified people are in charge? Will she investigate those which have not been approved as efficient by her Department and particularly those which are not purpose-built?

Mrs. Thatcher: The schools are inspected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate.

Higher Education

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she will be starting discussions with university representatives about the development of higher education in the 1970s.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The Department is already in consultation with the University Grants Committee about this.

Mr. Lane: Is my hon. Friend aware that his promptness will be welcomed? Will he confirm that it is not the intention to put excessive strain on universities by urging them to expand too much or too fast?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am certain that these are factors which must be foremost in the discussions to which I have already referred.

Mr. Edward Short: May I ask the Under-Secretary the question which I asked his right hon. Friend and to which I received no reply? By what percentage is it proposed to increase teacher-training over the next five years?

Mr. van Straubenzee: This is one of those matters which is clearly under consultation at present, within one month of the Conservative Government taking office.

Corporal Punishment

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will take steps to phase out corporal punishment in schools.

Mr. van Straubenzee: In my view, this is properly within the discretion of local education authorities and teachers.

Mr. Cronin: Is the Under-Secretary aware that in almost no other European country is corporal punishment permitted? Is not corporal punishment in schools unnecessary, does it not teach children to approve of physical violence, and does it not often lead to sadistic practices?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am well aware that this a matter which arouses strong feelings both ways, but I still believe that it is better left in the way I first suggested.

Mr. Cronin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory

nature of the answer, I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Playgroups and Nursery Facilities

Mr. John E. B. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make proposals for encouraging the provision of playgroups and similar nursery facilities for children under five in those areas where formal nursery schools or classes cannot yet be made available.

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will take steps to encourage the expansion of playgroups and to assure a greater Departmental responsibility for them.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Responsibility for the inspection and registration of playgroups will be a matter for social service departments of local authorities under the Local Authorities (Social Services) Act passed by the last Parliament and for my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Social Services. But I recognise the educational importance of the work done by playgroups and I hope that, in suitable cases, local authorities will continue to give assistance to them.

Mr. Hill: In view of the great growth of the playgroup movement, has not the time come to establish some more formal links with the Department of Education and Science, especially in regard to the setting and maintenance of standards of education, rather than leave it so much on health grounds?

Mr. van Straubenzee: My hon. Friend, who is expert in these matters, will understand the problem arising out of his suggestion in relation to the legislation to which I have just drawn attention, but I shall, naturally, look at them in the light of his observations.

Miss Lestor: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, however sympathetic he may be to the playgroup movement, it is difficult to encourage playgroups to develop under his Department if the Department has no responsibility for them? Will he, therefore, again consider sharing responsibility for playgroups with the new Social Services Committee and, in the meantime, issue a circular to local education authorities drawing


attention to the needs of the under-fives not covered by nursery schools?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I have gently to remind the hon. Lady that the legislation under which we work was the product of her own Government.

Miss Lestor: Before I was there.

Schools (Mini-minor Improvements)

Mr. John E. B. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will restore to local education authorities freedom to carry out mini-minor improvements to schools; and within what limits.

Mr. van Straubenzee: No decision has yet been made about mini-minor works. Local education authorities are free to use their minor works allocations for projects which individually cost up to £30,000.

Mr. Hill: Would not my hon. Friend agree that to restore "mini-minors" would enable a great many exasperating small defects to be removed from schools which at present have to remain in old buildings, particularly primary schools in rural areas?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I know that my right hon. Friend's mind is in no way closed to suggestions in this respect, but my hon. Friend will recall that few minor projects now need individual approval.

Secondary Education and School Building

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will publish a White Paper on Government policy towards secondary education and school-building programmes.

Mrs. Thatcher: Not at present.

Mr. Judd: Will not the right hon. Lady agree that for those who are trying seriously to get on with the job of accepting responsibility for the education of our children, it is not good enough only to have a thoroughly negative circular from her Department, and that there is urgent need for a clear indication of what positive thinking there is on the things that matter?

Mrs. Thatcher: That was positive thinking, and the 1944 Act, as amended,

is a positive Act under which great advances were made by previous Ministers of Education.

Mr. Maude: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, in following her admirable policy of restoring freedom of choice to local authorities, it is essential that, where selection is chosen by a local authority, resources be made available to allow it to work properly through the provision of adequate numbers of school places?

Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, Sir. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point.

Mr. Edward Short: In the Press notice issued after the right hon. Lady met the National Union of Teachers, she was reported as saying that she would consider issuing a further circular to give guidance. Has she now abandoned that?

Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir. The answer which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend was, "Not at present".

Direct Grant and Independent Schools (London)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps she proposes to take following the proposal by the Inner London Education Authority to discontinue contributions towards places at direct grant and independent schools in the London area.

Mrs. Thatcher: At most of the direct grant schools affected by the decision of the I.L.E.A., other local education authorities have been taking up all or nearly all of the free places which the schools are required to offer as a condition of grant. I am in consultation with the Direct Grant Schools Committee about the future of the direct grant schools.

Mr. Hunt: I am glad that many of the other boroughs, particularly outer London boroughs, are interested in taking up these places, but will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that she will give every possible encouragement, perhaps even by financial contribution, to enable these outer London boroughs to take up the places relinquished as a result of that spiteful and short-sighted decision by the Inner London Education Authority?

Mrs. Thatcher: That is one of the matters which I am considering with the Direct Grant Schools Committee.

Mr. Molloy: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her answer, her abominable circular and her whole philosophy towards education are a complete negation of the Prime Ministers "One Nation" theme? Will she tell us who is the hypocrite?

Hon. Members: You are.

Mrs. Thatcher: I think that my hon. Friends are answering that question adequately.

Universities (Local Authority Grants)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will issue a circular to local authorities giving guidance to them on their policy towards financial grants by them to universities.

Mr. van Straubenzee: No, Sir. This is best left to the judgment of the local authorities.

Mr. Judd: Whatever may be the eccentric excesses of an unrepresentative minority of the student community, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is totally ill advised for ill-informed local authorities crudely to try to tie political strings to the financial support which they give to universities?

Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman knows that I share his concern at the link between local authorities and the university or other institutions in their area, but I do insist that this is a matter for their decision.

Pontefract and Featherstone

Mr. Harper: asked the Secetary of State for Education and Science what proposals she has received from the West Riding County Council for the reorganisation of secondary education on comprehensive lines in the Pontefract and Featherstone area.

Mrs. Thatcher: Last February, the authority withdrew its proposals for reconsideration.

Mr. Harper: I am not surprised at that. But is the right hon. Lady aware that most of the surrounding area has already

gone comprehensive, that Pontefract and Featherstone are desperately wanting the reorganisation of secondary education on comprehensive lines, and that the only thing stopping this is the further school accommodation which is desperately needed, especially in the Featherstone area? Will she, therefore, given an instruction and some extra resources to the West Riding County Council so that it can get on with the school building so necessary in this area in order to let us have comprehensive education?

Mrs. Thatcher: School building is the limiting factor in these proposals. It was the limiting factor also under Circular 10/65.

Conisbrough Northcliffe Secondary School

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science is she will include in the 1971–72 building programme the project for the rebuilding of the Conisbrough Northcliffe Secondary School.

Mr. van Straubenzee: My right hon. Friend is considering a proposal by the West Riding Authority for the improvement and extension of this school for inclusion in the preliminary list of projects which may be expected to start in 1972–73.

Mr. Wainwright: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account that this school has suffered subsidence and there are 14 temporary classrooms placed hotch-potch around the area, and will he, therefore, consider bringing the project forward a year earlier to ensure that proper accommodation can be found for the children there?

Mr van Straubenzee: I could not under take to do that. The school building starts which we inherited for 1971–72 are already fully committed.

School Children (Transport)

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in view of the hardship caused by increased bus fares to parents of schoolchildren travelling less than two miles to school in the case of children under eight years old and less than three miles in the case of children over eight years


old, she will take steps to abolish the limits on free transport for school children, particularly in rural areas.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Local education authorities already have discretionary powers to provide free transport for children living within the statutory walking distances.

Mr. Roberts: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware of the anxiety caused to a growing number of working mothers, especially since the introduction of British Standard Time?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am aware of the problems and of my hon. Friend's concern about them, which was evidenced in our proceedings last week, but on the specific point which he raises I draw his attention to the latitude which is available.

Mr. Edward Short: Will the Government give an undertaking that they will not increase the charges for school transport?

Mr. van Straubenzee: That does not arise out of this Question.

Subnormal and Maladjusted Children

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans she has for increasing the number of residential school places for educationally subnormal children and maladjusted children.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Schools already under construction will provide 257 residential places for educationally subnormal children in England and Wales. I expect that nearly 400 further places will be provided in buildings to start not later than March, 1972. The equivalent number of places for maladjusted children is 616 and 350.

Mr. Goodhart: Will my hon. Friend keep in mind that there is a desperate shortage at national level in both categories, and that the finding of places for both educationally subnormal children and maladjusted children gives local authorities some agonising problems?

Mr. van Straubenzee: It happens to be one of my particular interests, and I

know that my hon. Friend has concerned himself much with it, but I can only give as an answer, "Within the terms of the resources available".

Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that it is possible to deal with some maladjustment cases by special units attached to existing schools rather than by providing relatively expensive buildings as special schools, and will he look into that?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am always prepared to look into any possibility in this field.

Mexborough Schools

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will approve the request to combine the Mexborough Secondary School with the Mexborough Grammar School so as to form a comprehensive unit.

Mr. van Straubenzee: No such proposal has been made to my right hon. Friend by the West Riding local education authority.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the Minister aware that the Mexborough and District Divisional Education Committee has given approval for the combination of the two schools to take place, that the existing secondary school will be with us for a long time and that the reactionary attitude of the West Riding County Council in not allowing the schools to go comprehensive means that there will be children in the Mexborough district condemned to existing secondary school education and not having the opportunity of a better kind of education?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am aware of the point about the Divisional Executive, but I remind the hon. Gentleman—I think he knows it well—that it has only advisory functions, and no proposal has been received from the authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

East African Asians

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future entry of Kenya Asians into this country.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) on 9th July.—[Vol. 803, c. 87.]

Mr. Wall: As we have certain special moral obligations towards Kenya Asians with British passports, and as they would much more easily be absorbed into our society, would my hon. Friend consider asking the Government of India and Pakistan to waive their quota to give Kenya Asians with British passports priority?

Mr. Carlisle: As my hon. Friend knows, British passport holders from East Africa are now permitted into this country on the basis of 1,500 special vouchers per year. My right hon. Friend is considering the whole question and will make a statement.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Have not the Government of India stated that they are prepared to waive their quota, for what that is worth, in favour of these very admirable potential immigrants into this country?

Mr. Carlisle: All I can say is that my right hon. Friend will take that into account in the consideration which he is giving to the question.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. May I ask whether the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short), sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, is shadow for both home and educational affairs? If he is not shadow for home affairs, where is the shadow Home Secretary?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have always deprecated points of order during Question Time unless they are necessary. That was not a point of order; it was a point of curiosity.

Boundary Commission

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now take steps to implement the findings of the Boundary Commission.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department

when he proposes to take steps to carry out the findings of the Boundary Commission.

Mr. Carlisle: The necessary resolutions were tabled on 9th July and, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said on 16th July, they will be moved as soon as possible after the Summer Recess.

Mr. Wall: Whilst I welcome the statement that we shall correct one of the anomalies on the last General Election, will my hon. Friend also try to do something about the other unfairness, to those who were disenfranchised by being away on holiday?

Mr. Carlisle: That is a matter which will also be considered.

Mr. Johnson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Boundary Commission's figures will possibly be 10 years out of date before the next General Election? Does he also agree that the figures will be even more warped in the big cities with slum clearance, like Manchester, Birmingham or Hull? Does he take that into account, and will he look at the matter again?

Mr. Carlisle: The Commission was required to submit reports on the basis of a 10 to 15 year programme. It produced those reports this year, and they should have been implemented by the previous Government. If they had been implemented, the comment which the hon. Gentleman made about discrimination between the sizes of various constituencies would no longer apply.

Sir E. Bullus: Will my hon. Friend ask the Boundary Commission to review individual proposals where there have been changed circumstances since the original proposals were made?

Mr. Carlisle: The Question dealt with the implementation of the findings of the present Boundary Commission. I think that I am right in saying that there is always power to review cases if they are referred to the Commission.

Mr. Leonard: Is the Minister aware that since the Boundary Commission Reports were produced the franchise has been extended to 18-year-old voters, which has increased the electorate by well over three million? Therefore, will he ask the Boundary Commissioners to look


again at their proposals so that that may be taken into account well before the next General Election?

Mr. Carlisle: The fact stated by the hon. Gentleman has extended still further the discrepancy between existing constituencies and is still greater justification for carrying out the proposals of the present Boundary Commission, as we intend to do immediately after the Summer Recess.

Pentonville Prison

Mr. George Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to release the site of Pentonville Prison to the Islington borough for building purposes.

Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend could not contemplate doing so until the supply of prison places in London and the South East is more nearly in line with the need.

Mr. Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that at present Islington is carrying a very heavy burden by having two 12-acre prisons on its territory at a time when it is desperately short of new land for house-building? Will he do his utmost to speed the time when Pentonville Prison can be re-sited, particularly since a decision has apparently been made that Holloway prison will be rebuilt on its present site?

Mr. Carlisle: We are well aware of the acute housing problems in Islington and that there are two prisons in the Borough. It would be raising false hopes if I suggested that we could give up Pentonville in the near future, but we shall consider this in long-term planning when the supply of prison places in London and the South-East is more nearly in line with the needs of the Prison Department, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept are very grave.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: May I ask two questions?—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"] First, will my hon. Friend pay particular regard to any questions on prisons from someone with the name "Cunningham"?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Second, will my hon. Friend look into the totally ridiculous financial provisions regarding

the reversion of prison sites to local authorities? Those financial provisions are quite out of date in the modern world.

Mr. Carlisle: If I may answer my hon. Friend's second question, I am aware that Section 38 of the Prison Act gives local authorities reversionary rights on the sites of certain prisons at prices fixed when they were first taken over in 1887. I am advised that that does not apply to Pentonville.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order. The point of the first supplementary question of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) was quite lost on me. I wonder whether it was meant to be insulting to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham). Could we have the purport of the question which was asked and not answered by the Minister?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I share the hon. Gentleman's ignorance of the meaning of the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary Question.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: On a point of order. One of the most distinguished names in the history of the administration of prisons is that of Sir Andrew Cunningham, as I think the hon. Gentleman would admit.

Immigrants (Deportation)

Mr. Peter Rees: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigrants during the past five years have been recommended for deportation by the appropriate court on conviction of a criminal offence; and how many of them have been in fact deported.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): During the five years ended 31st December, 1969 the courts recommended the deportation of 3,015 aliens, Commonwealth and Irish citizens, of whom 1,747 were deported.

Mr. Rees: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that under this Administration more attention will be paid to the views of the judges, who are possibly in the best possible position to assess the merits of the cases before them, rather than the Administration itself?

Mr. Sharples: I will say only that in many cases deportation orders were not carried out because of technical reasons and because they were wrongly framed.

Mr. Ford: What useful purpose could possibly be served by obtaining this information in isolation?

Mr. Sharples: That is a matter for my hon. and learned Friend who put down the Question.

Enzyme Washing Powders

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report of his committee of experts in regard to possible health hazards to users of enzyme washing powders.

Mr. Sharples: The first inquiries are inconclusive and a wider investigation is to be made during the next six months.

Mrs. Butler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable public anxiety about the incidence of dermatitis arising from the use of these powders? Would he consider requiring some kind of warning to be printed on the packet?

Mr. Sharples: Certainly, if that is proved to be the case. However, at the moment we do not have sufficient information and we need a great deal more. I will bear the suggestion in mind.

Mr. Harper: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a former Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan, set up a Committee in 1953 which reported on the effect on a human being of the use of washing powders? Why has that not been followed up?

Mr. Sharples: Investigations are now going on, but the composition of washing powders has changed a great deal since the time the hon. Gentleman mentions.

Cosmetics

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek powers to ensure that colours used in cosmetics conform to a permitted list which has been approved by his technical advisers.

Mr. Sharples: I have no evidence that a general control of this kind is necessary. The trade associations concerned will

shortly be publishing a code of practice giving guidance on the safety of ingredients used in cosmetics and I have no doubt that manufacturers generally will comply with it.

Mrs. Butler: Are any of the colourants which are banned from food being used in lipstick and other cosmetics? If so, what action is being taken against abuses and to protect the public?

Mr. Sharples: I understand that the hon. Lady asked a similar Question earlier this year. We are looking into this matter. She was concerned with the substance called Ponceau MX. Inquiries are being made and I will inform the hon. Lady of their outcome.

Mrs. Butler: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One Member, one question.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will my hon. Friend consider recommending cutting out bright red?

Remand Facilities

Mr. Dance: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to provide remand facilities for women in the Midlands.

Mr. Sharples: A search is being made for a building which could house women on remand in secure hostel conditions. A number of buildings have been considered but so far none has been found which is suitable or could be readily converted for this purpose.

Mr. Dance: Does my hon. Friend realise that this is an urgent matter? It is costing a great deal of money to escort these unfortunate women and they are being caused much disquiet and discomfort.

Mr. Sharples: I appreciate that, but there are many other ways to spend money on the heavy overcrowding in the prison service which we have inherited.

Police (Recruitment)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police were recruited to the constabularies of England and Wales in each of the last 10 years; and what was the total strength of the police forces in each of these years.

Mr. Sharples: I will, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hardy: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that in the last five years there has been a considerable increase in the strength of constabularies in England and Wales? Will he also say what proposals the Government now have to maintain the improvement which occurred under the Labour Administration?

Mr. Sharples: There has been an improvement, but police forces generally are well below authorised establishment. We are considering as a matter of urgency what further measures may be taken.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Did not the Labour Administration deliberately cut recruiting to the police forces, even though there was sufficient demand for recruiting? Will my hon. Friend now take all steps in his power to increase the recruiting ability of the police forces?

Mr. Sharples: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Recruiting for the police forces suffered considerably because of the artificial restriction on recruiting imposed by the Labour Administration. Fortunately, recruiting has now recovered from that.

Following is the information:


POLICE SERVICE IN ENGLAND AND WALES



Recruitment*
Strength at 31st December


1960
4,779
72,301


1961
6,117
75,222


1962
6,408
77,786


1963
6,529
79,696


1964
6,621
80,680


1965
8,480
83,940


1966
7,703
86,505


1967
8,839
90,640


1968
5,325
90,782


1969
6,450
91,762


1970 (January-May)
2,982
92,707 (at 31st May)


*Including transfers 1960–65.

Representation of the People Act, 1969

Mr. Cohen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requests he has received to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1969, Section 15; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Sharples: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations; and provisions for amending the qualifications for election to and membership of local authorities are contained in the Local Government (Qualification of Councillors) Bill being introduced today.

Mr. Cohen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that any legislation which changed the present situation and reverted to the arrangement by which people were entitled to vote for and sit on local authorities in spite of non-residence would be regarded as a contradiction of democratic principles? In view of that, is he prepared to assure the House that, in spite of the considerable pressures to which he has been subjected by a vocal but totally non-representative minority, he will not atttempt to take such action?

Mr. Sharples: The hon. Gentleman had better await the terms of the Bill, which he will be able to see shortly. He will find that it incorporates not only the principle of the ownership or occupation of property as a qualification, but the Maud recommendation giving the right to stand for election if a person's principal place of work is in the area.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT AND MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Marks: asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to co-ordinate the functions of the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): The machinery of Government in this area is under review.

Mr. Marks: During the period of this review—and we do not know how long it will take—will the Prime Minister do something about the lack of co-ordination between regional planning councils and the joint conferences of local authorities?

The Prime Minister: I have already said that the results of the review will be announced in the autumn, but I shall certainly attend to the points which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to participate in the negotiations on proposed entry of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister: I would refer to my reply to a Question by the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) on Tuesday.—[Vol. 804, c. 96.]

Mr. Hamilton: Would the Prime Minister repeat that reply, because I am not fully aware of it? In any case, in view of his vast experience of failure in this field, will he make sure that he goes to Brussels and has another go? Will he understand that the housewives of this country, to whom he owes his present position more than to anybody else, will not tolerate the subsidisation by them of inefficient, small, French peasant farmers?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has difficulty in recalling events as recent as last Tuesday.
I said in that reply that negotiations would be carried on by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and that I did not propose to take part in them myself.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his compliments, but my experience is that it is a better arrangement that negotiators should be allowed to carry on negotiations unimpeded by any colleagues, and I therefore do not propose to go to Brussels myself.

Mr. Peart: In view of the importance of agriculture and food, which has been emphasised in the negotiations, will the Prime Minister say whether the views of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, in an interview reported in the Daily Express recently, represent the Government's views on the C.A.P.?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend expressed those views very clearly. In reading that article, it is important to distinguish between the views of my right hon. Friend and the views of the journalist who wrote the rest of the article.

MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Alex Eadie: asked the Prime Minister if he will include the Minister of Overseas Development in the Cabinet.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that he will retain the Ministry of Overseas Development as a separate Department.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I would refer to my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) on 14th July.—[Vol. 803, c. 185.]

Mr. Eadie: Is the Prime Minister aware that this suggestion has come from other quarters where there is no possibility of any bias being attached to the suggestion? Would he not agree that if he as Prime Minister were to make this announcement, it would establish confidence not only in his Government's intentions but among people overseas that they will be involved in overseas aid under his Administration?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept that the effectiveness of overseas aid, let alone the quantity, depends on the Minister being in the Cabinet. In any case, I do not want to prejudge the review of the organisation, the results of which I shall announce in October.

Mr. Braine: With regard to the second Question, is my right hon. Friend aware that what matters is not so much the maintenance of a separate Ministry of Overseas Development, although that Department has served the nation exceedingly well by any yardstick, but that the concentration of expertise that it represents should not be dispersed? Is he further aware that what really matters, too, is the Government's will to have a sensible, balanced, expanding, well-thought-out aid programme and that it is upon that test that the Government will be judged?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. I would only add to the last one that it depends on what private investment it is possible to get into the developing countries and


the sort of reception which the developing countries will give to those who want to invest in them.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. English: asked the Prime Minister what are to be the cost limitations imposed upon the answering of Questions by Ministers; and by whom such limitations can be varied in individual cases.

The Prime Minister: There has been no change in the existing practice under which Ministers consider in individual cases whether the cost of preparing the Answer would be disproportionate.

Mr. English: Would the right hon. Gentleman state what cost limits are normally used for this purpose? As it is often said in the House that the cost of answering a particular Question would be excessive, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that any Minister can decide to answer any Question at any cost?

The Prime Minister: Obviously Ministers have to use their discretion and judgment in this matter. I am told that the approximate cost today of answering a Written Question is £10—Written—and an Oral Question £14. Normally the run of Questions goes up to £50. Quite the most expensive Answer is to provide an Answer to a Question asking about the cost of Questions.

Mr. English: On a point of order. I know that you deprecate the raising of points or order during Question time, Mr. Speaker, so I wish to raise one now.
In the course of answering my Question No. 4 the Prime Minister stated that the average cost of answering a Question was £10. That was given in evidence to the Committee on Procedure 10 years ago. Since it is a matter of concern to all back benchers—and I put this to you, Mr. Speaker, as the defender of back benchers—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain whether that is the cost for a simple answer or whether the present Administration are not spending as much time on answering Questions as did the previous Administration?

Mr. Speaker: That was a supplementary question—the second by the hon. Member—disguised as a point of order.

The Prime Minister: I should like to clarify one point. The cost of £10 which I gave referred to a Written Answer. When they gave a figure of £10 it was for an Oral Answer. The cost of an Oral Answer is always greater than that of a Written Answer.

PARTY POLITICAL BROADCASTS

Mr. D. J. Stewart: asked the Prime Minister if he will now introduce legislation to govern the allocation of broadcasting time for party political purposes.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the dissatisfaction and resentment felt in Scotland by all fair-minded people in all parts that a party such as the Scottish Nationalist Party, putting up 65 candidates in the 71 constituencies, should be confined to five minutes each of television and radio time? Is he aware that this has been condemned by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland? Is this gerrymandering to continue as a permanent feature?

The Prime Minister: The arrangements for broadcasting time for the parties have been carried on in the same way for many years. What is quite plain from all the allocation of time is that the minority parties receive a disproportionate amount of time on television and the air considering the vote they poll or their representation in this House.

CIVIL SERVANTS

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister what further discussions he has had with the Staff Side of the Civil Service regarding charges made on the integrity of civil servants.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir.

Mr. Molloy: Would the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of completely dissociating himself from and condemning the views of his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who has hurt and damaged the good name of the British Civil Service? Further, has the Prime Minister had an opportunity of checking the


article in the Economist which I and a number of my colleagues sent to him and which he said he would examine?

The Prime Minister: I have constantly said that if there is any evidence to substantiate the charges it must be produced. It would then be investigated. The right hon. Member the present Leader of the Opposition said exactly the same thing during the General Election campaign. As to the Press cutting which has been sent to me, there is no evidence in it to support the charges made. There is, therefore, nothing to investigate. I have repeatedly reaffirmed the confidence of this Administration and myself in the Civil Service and its integrity. As I told the House, I did so at the opening of the Civil Service College at which senior civil servants were present. That deals entirely with the point the hon. Gentleman has made.

NORTHERN IRELAND (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

The Rev. Ian Paisley: asked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Northern Ireland in the near future.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so, Sir.

The Rev. Ian Paisley: In view of the undemocratic and iniquitous decision of the Northern Ireland Government announced today to ban Loyalist processions next month in Ulster, does the Prime Minister not think that he should go to Ulster and hear the views of all sections of the community, not like the previous Prime Minister who failed to come to us?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary paid a visit to Northern Ireland shortly after the Administration took office and the Northern Ireland Prime Minister has since been to London. I have had discussions with him.
Dealing with the announcement by the Northern Ireland Government today, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the whole of the Administration welcome it and the fact that Northern Ireland is now returning to normal system of policing, together with a ban on all processions

for at least six months. This will enable the security forces to be relieved of many of the burdens upon them whenever a procession takes place.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Has the right hon. Gentleman any proposals which would tend to make the hon. and reverend Member more assiduous in his duties in the House than he has been hitherto?

Mr. McMaster: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that if we are to return to the normal system of policing, the police are properly armed—[Hors. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—so that they can deal with situations such as that which occurred in my constituency three or four weeks ago when three people lost their lives and 24 were injured and the Army was unable to cope with the situation?

The Prime Minister: I recognise the difficulties which arise from these individual incidents. I should have thought that everyone in the House wanted Northern Ireland to return to a normal existence in which the police are unarmed.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. May I inquire why the hon. Member for Antrim, North (The Rev. Ian Paisley) is referred to on the Order Paper as "reverend"? As far as I understand it, he has neither religious qualifications nor office other than those which he has conferred upon himself.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I deprecate the raising of points of order during Question Time. It cuts valuable time. The simple answer is that the hon. Gentleman is a "reverend".

WAGES AND PRICES

Mr. John D. Grant: asked the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for wages and prices policy.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity has general responsibility in consultation with the other Ministers concerned.

Mr. Grant: Since, as far as I could hear, the Prime Minister appears to suggest that he has actually got a policy in relation to these matters, may I ask whether he is aware that his views are causing great concern to employees in


the public sector who feel that on wages they will be unfairly discriminated against whereas on prices he has yet to take any steps at all towards proving that he will not rat on his election promises?

The Prime Minister: There is no justification for the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS OFFICE

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Prime Minister what is the cost today, including salaries, of the Press Office at No. 10 Downing Street, compared with the cost on 17th June, 1970.

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister what was the cost, including salaries, of the Press Office at No. 10 Downing Street in September, 1964 and May, 1970, respectively.

The Prime Minister: In September, 1964 six people were employed in the Press Office at 10, Downing Street at an annual salary cost of £13,000. By early June, 1970 the number had risen to eight, and the annual cost to £22,000. Another ten people were also being employed at an annual cost of £28,000 in the newly created office of the Chief Information Adviser in the Cabinet Office. This made a total number of 18 and a total annual cost of £50,000.
We are abolishing the office of the Chief Information Adviser in the Cabinet Office, appointing one information officer to advise the Lord President, and strengthening the Press Office at No. 10. When this process is complete there will be 12 people altogether employed on this work, at an annual salary cost of £38,000. This means a saving of six people and £12,000 a year.

Mr. Kaufman: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman, not only for his Answer but also for honouring me by linking my Question with a Question from the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). Could the right hon. Gentleman explain, in view of the derogatory references to Press briefings made by the Foreign Secretary yesterday, among others, why it is now necessary for him to have three Chief Information Officers in his office compared with two under the last Administration, one paid at an ambassadorial salary level, together with a Conservative Central Office image-maker situated in the Cabinet office?

The Prime Minister: As I explained in my very full Answer, if the hon. Gentleman had been listening to it, we have abolished the previous office of Chief Information Adviser in the Cabinet Office. As a result of that, and of strengthening No. 10, we have saved men and money. My chief adviser has ambassadorial rank because he came from the Foreign Service and because we want to improve the quality at No. 10.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Appropriation (No. 2) Act, 1970.
2. International Monetary Fund Act, 1970.
3. Fiji Independence Act, 1970.
4. National Insurance (Old persons' and widows' pensions and attendance allowance) Act, 1970.
5. Education (Handicapped Children) Act, 1970.
6. Harbours (Amendment) Act, 1970.
7. Aberdeen Extension Order Confirmation Act, 1970.
8. Forth Ports Authority Order Confirmation Act, 1970.
9. Mallaig Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1970.
10. Bank of Scotland Order Confirmation Act, 1970.
11. Fife County Council Order Confirmation Act, 1970.
12. Midlothian County Council Order Confirmation Act, 1970.
13. West Lothian County Council Order Confirmation Act, 1970.
14. Lake of Menteith Fisheries Order Confirmation Act, 1970.
15. Barclays Bank Trust Company Act, 1970.
16. Brighton Corporation Act, 1970.
17. North Riding County Council Act, 1970.
18. Blackburn Corporation Act, 1970.
19. Kent County Council Act, 1970.
20. Williams &amp; Glyn's Bank Act, 1970.
21. Cumberland County Council Act, 1970.
22. Gloucestershire County Council Act, 1970.
23. Salop County Council Act, 1970.
24. West Sussex County Council Act, 1970.
25. Staffordshire County Council Act, 1970.
26. Northumberland County Council Act, 1970.
27. Manchester Corporation Act, 1970.
28. Whitehaven Harbour Act, 1970.
29. Tor Bay Harbour Act, 1970.

30. West Hertfordshire Main Drainage Act, 1970.
31. Greater London Council (Money) Act, 1970.

POST OFFICE (INCREASED TARIFFS)

The following Written Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. JOHN NOTT: To ask the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement before the Summer Recess about his consideration of postal charges.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): With permission, I should like to answer Written Question No. 78.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Can you explain, Mr. Speaker, why the Minister's statement should be allowed to be made when the information and details of what is now about to be "leaked" to the House was leaked in all the Press this morning and on the radio? You have just said, Mr. Speaker, that you do not like the time of the House being wasted. We have read all the information which is about to be given. It must have been an official "leak" from the Post Office because no one else could have obtained the information.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has frequently called attention to the phenomenon known as the "leak". It is beyond my power to explain it.

Mr. Lewis: Further to that point of order. I appreciate that you cannot be responsible for the "leak", Mr. Speaker, but the Minister is asking for the time of the House to answer a Written Question which normally would receive a Written Answer. There is no urgency about this matter and no need for it because we all know what is about to happen: the Tory Government are going to put up the prices of the post. This information was in the Press. All that we need to do is to have a debate later when we have all the details. The right hon. Gentleman is just wasting time.

Mr. Speaker: It is sometimes courteous of a Minister, when he has an important announcement, to make it in the House.

Mr. Chataway: It will be noticed that there is only a passing similarity between the announcement which I am about to make and the reports which appeared in the Press this morning.
The following is the answer to the Question:
Yes. After consulting me the Post Office is referring proposals to the Post Office Users' National Council for increased letter, parcel and other miscellaneous postal tariffs. Its main proposal is that the present 4d. rate for second class mail should become 6d. next January and the 5d. rate for first-class mail 7d.; and that these new rates should become 2½p and 3p respectively on Decimal Day, in accordance with the officially recommended conversion table.
These services have, for more than two years, been incurring mounting losses and the Post Office has accordingly taken the view since the beginning of this year that increased charges of this order were necessary. Indeed it decided in May to embark upon the printing of decimal stamps at the new rates in order to ensure supplies in time for Decimal Day. I am assured, however, that this does not preclude consideration of alternatives in the light of suggestions from the Users' Council and until its comments are available the Government remain uncommitted to the Post Office's proposals.

Mr. Nott: We entirely appreciate that this is just another bill left over from the previous Government. However, does my right hon. Friend feel that, when inflation is brought under control, the proposed increases will be adequate to ensure that the postal services remain in surplus over the coming years?

Mr. Chataway: I believe that the proposed increases should be sufficient for the remaining period of the five-year quinquennium target period—that is, until 1973–74. But the plain fact is that we face an accumulated short-fall on target of £88 million by the end of this year.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—

Mr. Pannell: On a point of order. It has always been your practice, Mr.

Speaker, when calling Members to give preference to Privy Councillors according to their seniority.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It has not been the practice at Question Time to give preference to Privy Councillors. I called the right hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) because he was the last Postmaster-General.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it will be recognised among those who know the facts of the situation in the Post Office that some increase in the postal tariffs is justified at this time, but that the swingeing increases which he has just announced are completely unjustified? They will not encourage efficiency in the Post Office and they certainly would not have been approved if the last Administration had continued in office.
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the Post Office Corporation had no authority from the last Administration to print the stamps to which he has referred and that its anxiety was to achieve the highest possible increase in productivity? It is fairly clear that the swingeing increases which the right hon. Gentleman has just announced will be pushed through. Is he aware that this will take away from the Post Office Corporation the incentive to increase productivity which it was the wish of the last Administration it should achieve? Is he also aware that he is inaccurate in suggesting that the postal services were incurring mounting losses over the last two years? The first six months of the two-tier system showed a surplus in that department. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—

Hon. Members: No.

Sir R. Cary: On a point of order. Is the Rule suspended on this Question?

Mr. Speaker: Long supplementary questions prevent others from putting questions.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the Minister undertake to review this proposal, which, he says, the Post Office is sending to the P.O.U.N.C., in the light of the need to increase productivity in the Post Office and in the light of the need to avoid a swingeing increase that would incur great burdens for consumers?

Mr. Chataway: The right hon. Gentleman claims that there was no loss on the transactions of the Post Office during 1968–69 and 1969–70. [Interruption.] The facts of the matter are—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate in shouting. Mr. Chataway.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. It is not right, Mr. Speaker, that we should keep silent when the Minister misrepresents what my right hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I never ask the House to keep silent. A certain modicum of noise is permissible.

Mr. Chataway: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that I was in error in claiming that there had been mounting losses on the postal side of the Post Office's business over the last two years. The figures are that for 1968–69 there was a £9 million shortfall. For 1969–70 it is likely to be £26 million and for 1970–71 £53 million, making a total shortfall on target of £88 million.
As to productivity, the Post Office's estimates are based on an assumed rise in productivity of 1½ per cent. over the coming years. This contrasts with a decline in productivity over the past two years.
It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, that the Post Office embarked upon this printing of stamps without the consent of the Government. I am, however, informed by the Post Office that it embarked on this printing with the full knowledge of the Government and that that information was deliberately suppressed before the election.

Mr. Marten: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. What I have said about noise on one side applies to the other side in just the same way.

Mr. Marten: Concerning the printing of the stamps before the election, does my right hon. Friend recall what his predecessor said: that the Post Office was printing these stamps without his consent and without his knowledge? [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Post Office is allowed to print new stamps without the consent of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications?

Mr. Chataway: Yes, the Post Office is allowed to proceed without that consent. As I say, however, it was done with the knowledge of the Government.

Mr. Benn: The Minister has announced the largest increase in postal charges in the history of the Post Office—that is to say, a 50 per cent. increase in the basic charge of 4d. is the largest increase in the history of the Post Office—five weeks after the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, made a speech on the eve of poll to the effect that he would take a firm grip of a number of public sector charges, including postal charges. Is the Minister also aware that 5d., 7d., 10s. and £1 stamps have always been printed, that nothing is to be read into the printing of the stamps and that the Cabinet had not approved the increase?
Will the right hon. Gentleman refer the proposed increases to the Prices and Incomes Board? Did the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications consider alternative systems? Will the Minister now tell the House that during the election the criticism he was really making was that the previous Government had not increased charges enough?

Mr. Chataway: I am a little surprised that the right hon. Member should intervene in a matter of this kind when one recalls the tremendous song and dance he made in October, 1964, about an accumulated shortfall on profit which was less than half of what we are talking about today—£120 million over the quinquennium. We are talking today about a shortfall which, if it were left to run similarly over the whole quinquennium, would amount to about £305 million.
As to printing, the fact is—as I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would know—that a phosphor bar is required in the units which constitute the main postal value—that is to say, at present the 4d. and 5d. units and, after the change, the 6d. and 7d. units. It is the presence of those phosphor bars which determines the intention of the Post Office. The printing was on the basis, as again the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, of a tariff of this nature.
We have not accepted these proposals of the Post Office, as I have made clear. I have announced this application from the Post Office and informed the House


of the legacy with which we have been left, but when the Users' Council has had the opportunity of studying the Post Office's proposals the Government will come to a decision on the matter.

Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question: are these proposed charges to be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman recall any occasion when a Government have authorised a price increase to cover the next five years ahead, having fought an election campaign in which they have time and again demanded a tighter control over price increases?

Mr. Chataway: The right hon. Gentleman is going from bad to worse. I have told him that we have not authorised these price increases and that they are being referred, not to the Prices and Incomes Board, but to the Users' Council, as is the normal procedure, before the Government come to a decision.
There is no question of putting up prices to cover deficits for years ahead. The price increases which are now proposed are, in the opinion of the Post Office, only those which are necessary to meet the deficit with which it is now faced, in part as a result of the inaction of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member.

Sir J. Rodgers: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the two-tier system is the best system of postal collection and delivery? Can he say what would be the comparable cost if we went back to a unitary system of only one rate of charge for the posting of letters?

Mr. Chataway: It is too soon to take final decisions about the two-tier post. It has both advantages and disadvantages. What is clear is that if we were to move away from the two-tier system that would not afford any means of putting up the charges by much less.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Minister aware that if he took his hon. Friend's advice and considered doing away with the two-tier system the effects on poorer people, who use the postage system a lot, would be much more severe than it is likely to be even as it is?

Mr. Chataway: I think the hon. Member is probably right about that.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will kindly outline the powers of the Post Office Users' Council? Has it any power to reject? What is its position? Is it really just a sort of method of using these kinds of councils with which I do not agree very much?

Mr. Chataway: The Users' Council has a statutory right to be consulted—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—and it represents a wide cross-section of users, and the Users' Council, under the Chairmanship of Lord Peddie, will examine these increases, not only the major increases but the rest of the increases for postal and parcel charges also.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Will the Minister bear in mind that if these alarming increases are subsequently linked with the abolition of the postal two-tier system, he will in fact be putting in jeopardy the hitherto guaranteed morning after the day of posting delivery, and in fact the public will be receiving an inferior service for a more costly postage rate?

Mr. Chataway: I will hear in mind the comment the hon. Member makes.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Can my right hon. Friend say at what level in the organisation the decision to make this printing was taken? Was it authorised by the Post Office Board itself? And on what date did printing commence?

Mr. Chataway: I am inforced by the Post Office that the Post Office Board took the decision on 15th May finally to go ahead with printing of these decimal stamps with the new tariff.

Mr. Kelley: Would the Minister tell us if the questions he has answered are £14 or £10 questions, and how much it would have cost if he made a simple statement to the House on the matters he has dealt with?

Mr. Chataway: I hope I have made as simple a statement as the facts warrant, but it is, as the hon. Gentleman would agree, a very unpleasant situation with which we are faced.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the significance of the relevations concerning printing that the responsibility for any proposed increase rests upon the negligence


and incompetence and dilatoriness of my right hon. Friend's predecessor in office?

Mr. Chataway: Yes, I believe there will be absolutely no doubt in the minds of the public that, faced with a deficit of this kind, an increase, and a large increase, is absolutely necessary, though I hope I have made it clear that we are not committed and cannot be committed to the proposals of the Post Office.

Mr. Jay: Is this proposal part of a general policy by this Government of raising prices for essential services?

Mr. Chataway: It is part of a policy on the part of this Government of putting the nationalised industries on a sound commercial foot ing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—despites the legacy with which we were left.

Mr. Benn: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the Prime Minister fought the whole election on charges in the public sector? Let me quote what he said—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: There can be no quotations in a supplementary question.

Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Prime Minister, during the campaign, time and again attacked the level of charges in the public sector, including postal charges? He now comes along and makes a 50 per cent. increase. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He announces a 50 per cent. increase is to be considered, and that without referring the matter to the Prices and Incomes Board at all.

Mr. Chataway: We have, as I have said on a number of occasions this afternoon, not made this increase; we are not committed to these proposals of the Post Office. I will say this to the right hon. Gentleman, that if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and all of us had known during the election—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—as he and his colleagues knew, if full information had not been deliberately suppressed, what he said about the Post Office might have been somewhat different.

Mr. Stonehouse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your guidance?

This is an extremely important subject which will have considerable repercussions in the economy. May I ask whether it will be possible for the House of Commons to debate the issues involved before the Minister comes to a decision about approving the increases now proposed?

Mr. Speaker: That might be dealt with in Business Questions later on.

NATIONAL BOARD FOR PRICES AND INCOMES

Mrs. Castle: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether he will now make the Statement on the future of the National Board for Prices and Incomes which he promised he would make before the recess.

The Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Robert Carr): The future of the Board is being reviewed in the context of a wider examination covering the work of the Monopolies Commission and other relevant bodies. In the meantime the Board has been asked to continue its work on the references which have already been made to it. We do not propose to retain the existing detailed "early warning" system for pay and price increases. It is, however, important that the Government should keep themselves informed about prospective movements in the price of major products and about important pay settlements and we shall be discussing with industry what voluntary arrangements should be made for this purpose. The Government do not intend to make use of the powers, which expire at the end of this year, to impose a three-month standstill on pay and price increases pending inquiry by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement means that at last we have extracted from him the admission that he intends to abolish the National Board for Prices and Incomes as a piece of personal and political vindictiveness? Is he also aware that the rest of the statement is just a smokescreen for the fact that the public will no longer have a watchdog over unjustified price increases, that big business has won for


itself a free hand to increase prices—which it was promised during the election campaign? How on earth does he hope to get on this basis the voluntary co-operation over pay settlements to which he referred?

Mr. Carr: I suspect that the public have got a little tired of Ministers and organisations watching their prices going up as fast as they were going up under the last Administration, far faster than they went up under a different system of government before. We believe that where there is competition that is the most effective means of safeguarding the consumer, and the less it is interfered with the better. Where competition is lacking we shall certainly need machinery to make it effective and, where it cannot be made effective, to safeguard the consumer. That is what the review is about.

Mr. Harold Wilson: When the right hon. Gentleman, following his leader, refers to the virtues of competition, is he referring to oil companies as competitive or monopolistic?

Mr. Carr: What I would have been interested in, what I am sure the House would have been interested in, was to have known in practice what the right hon. Gentleman thought about that for six years.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Answer the question.

Mr. Carr: We believe, let me repeat, that where there is competition it should be left free play, and that is the best safeguard for the consumer. Where there is lack of competition, or a suspected lack of competition, there should be adequate machinery to inquiry into it and to make the competition effective, and if it cannot be made effective, to safeguard the consumer. That is what the machinery will be which we will in due course set up.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question about oil. Oil prices have gone up and, if I may declare an interest, tobacco prices as well. Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question. Does he think these companies are characterised by monopoly or by competition?

Does he not recognise that, whatever the philosophical answer that he has been trying to stammer out, we would have had the National Board for Prices and Incomes to see whether the price increases were necessary?

Mr. Carr: And a great deal of good that would have done! We would have had three months delay, no action at the end of it and prices would still have gone on rising faster than they have done since the last Labour Government 20 years ago.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I warmly welcome the demise of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, but will my right hon. Friend give us an indication of his plans to strengthen the Monopolies Commission, particularly its full-time membership?

Mr. Carr: My right hon. and learned Friend puts his finger on one of the most important points of our review. We made clear before the election, and we repeat now, that there is need to have more effective machinery to make a competition policy more effective and, where competition cannot be made effective, to safeguard the consumer. These are exactly the sort of matters that are under review. The previous Government took many months to come forward with their cock-eyed idea for the Commission on Industry and Manpower. We need a little more than four weeks to produce something better.

Mr. Peart: How does the Minister equate his declaration for a competition system with the intention of the Conservative Administration to bring in a levy system which will increase the price of food and end competitiveness?

Mr. Carr: I do not speak about agriculture. I seem to remember that some 20 years ago the Labour Opposition of those days, in a rather similar situation, were talking about what would happen to the price of food when the then Conservative Government abolished food subsidies. What we proved then and shall prove again is that a market economy with the minimum interference where competition is effective leads to lower prices over the whole range of the scale than is achieved by meddling interference by the Government. The


record of the 13 years of Conservative Government and the five and a half years of Labour Government proves our contention to be true.

Mr. Sheldon: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the industrial situation today? What does he intend to do about those monopolies which he cannot break up and which are abusing their market power?

Mr. Carr: As I said in my statement, we need effective machinery for dealing with these problems. We have made it clear that we feel the present Monopolies Commission as it stands is not adequate. It is obvious to the whole British public that the N.B.P.I. had no measurable effect. In our view and in the view of most of those best qualified to judge, the previous Government's proposal for a C.I.M. was also not the right answer.

Mr. Atkinson: In view of the Government's intention to refer the increased postal charges to a Users' Council and in view of the statement the right hon. Gentleman has just made, are the Government now saying that it is their intention on all matters of public interest to set up Users' Councils to which price increases in the public sector will be referred?

Mr. Carr: I thought that Users' Councils were established, for example, by the last Government when they set up the present Post Office institution. As for referring the proposed increased postal charges to the N.B.P.I., if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite think it needs to be done, why was it not done in May before the printing of the stamps began?

Mr. Buchan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food only three years ago was arguing that the nation had been mollycoddled for too long by enjoying cheap food and that the time had come for higher food prices? He was arguing that dearer food would result from competition. What is the Government's policy?

Mr. Carr: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to tell the House and the British public that we have had decreasing food prices for the last few years?

Mr. Mikardo: The right hon. Gentleman proposes one policy where there is effective competition and a different policy where there is not. Is he sure that he can always distinguish between the two conditions? If so, will he tell us whether in the last week there has or has not been effective competition in the wholesale fruit, vegetable and meat markets?

Mr. Carr: When there is a restriction of supply, for whatever reason, of course competition cannot operate properly, and that is the situation in the area to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Where there is doubt, and there often is doubt, about whether competition does or does not exist in normal circumstances, the Government need an effective body to whom to refer such questions.

HON. MEMBER FOR ANTRIM, NORTH

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. As you suggested, Mr. Speaker, I have retained my point of order until Questions were completed. I raised a point as to the description of an hon. Member on the Order Paper. It was always my view that people could describe themselves as they liked, and if an hon. Member chose to appoint himself colonel of his own dragoons we would accept his self-description, but, in the case of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Lambton), that turned out not to be so. The hon. Member wished to continue to call himself Lord Lambton and we were told that it was out of order for him to do so. Will you, Mr. Speaker, consider the question of description on the Order Paper and let us know some time what the Ruling really is?

Mr. Speaker: There is a Motion on the Order Paper dealing, not with the personal issue which the hon. and learned Member has raised, but with the broader issue of titles and how hon. Members can choose to be recognised.
On the special issue previously raised of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the hon. Member has a church, he has, I understand, a degree, and he is a reverend as far as the House is concerned. I cannot investigate the validity of any titles of that kind.

Mr. George Thomas: On a point of order. May I ask Mr. Speaker, whether you will make a statement today about the letter published in The Times from the learned Clerk of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I shall be dealing with that in due course. At the moment we are continuing with the Order Paper.

Mr. Delargy: On a point of order. You said to my hon. and learned Friend that the hon. Member for Antrim, North had a degree. I assume that is a degree in theology. I am a bachelor of divinity and have never yet called myself reverend.

Mr. Speaker: Having known the hon. Gentleman over a number of years, I imagine that he would not wish to be called reverend.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE (MINISTER'S REPLY)

Mrs. Renée Short: On a point of order. I should like to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, concerning the debate that took place on the Adjournment last night. I then had the privilege of raising a matter of enormous concern in my constituency since it involves the redundancy of 1,300 workers because of the closure of Courtaulds factory.
During the debate I raised several matters of substance and I asked certain questions of the Minister to which I sought answers. I asked for certain information, including, for example, whether the firm had asked for an increase in prices since the change of Government. I wanted to know what action the Government were prepared to take.
Although I put these points to the Minister of Technology through his Parliamentary Secretary, who replied to the debate, I received no answer on any point at all. This is most unsatisfactory to me as a Member of Parliament and it is highly unsatisfactory to those constituents of mine. [Interruption.] This is a matter of very great importance to all backbenchers, and certainly is of great concern to those my constituents who will be thrown on the scrap heap by the end of the month. The firm was due to close at the end of October, but it is now to close at the end of July.
I am asking what action Members of Parliament can take in those circumstances. [Interruption.] I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker. Members of Parliament are not accustomed to sitting in the House in the early hours of the morning and not being paid the compliment of a courteous reply to all the points they have raised. They are not accustomed, and certainly were not accustomed during the previous Administration, to receiving disinterested replies from disinterested Ministers. I am now asking you, Mr. Speaker, for the protection you can give to Members of Parliament in these circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair cannot intervene in a debate which took place on a previous day. It is not unknown for hon. Members on either side of the House to be disappointed with Ministerial answers, either at Question Time or in debate. The hon. Lady asked for guidance, but there are other parliamentary ways in which she can pursue the matter. For example, she can raise it during Business Questions.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order. In view of recent happenings, is not the hon. Lady very lucky to have had a Minister present at all? She should think herself fortunate.

Mrs. Renée Short: Further to that point of order. What I am saying is that not only should the Leader of the House make sure his boys are there, but he should make sure that Members of Parliament get replies from them when they are there.

Mr. Speaker: We gathered that was the object of the hon. Lady's remarks.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of the Ruling you have given, Mr. Speaker, enabling us to confer titles on ourselves and on one another, may I ask the reverend Leader of the House to read the notices for the first week after the recess.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind proposal. I do not think it would be wholly appropriate,


for a wide number of reasons which are well known in all parts of the House.
The business for the first week after the Summer Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 27TH OCTOBER—There will be a debate on Metrication, which will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Prayer relating to the National Health Service (University Hospital of Wales (Cardiff) Designation) Order.
WEDNESDAY, 28TH OCTOBER—Motions on the Parliamentary Constituencies Orders relating to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
THURSDAY, 29TH OCTOBER—Supply [3rd Allotted Day]:
Debate on a topic to be announced.
FRIDAY, 30TH OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill.

Mr. Wilson: The business sounds a bit thin. Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether on the day of the topic to be announced or shortly thereafter he will be in a position to bring forward the Coal Bill about which he has been asked? Will he be able to tell the House, preferably this side of the recess, whether it carries out all the safeguards which were contained in the Bill introduced by the previous Government?

Mr. Whitelaw: As to the thought that the business was thin, I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman regards as thin the fact that the present Government will do what his Government utterly refused to do; that is, to implement the impartial recommendations of the Boundary Commission Orders.
In regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Coal Bill, I made clear in a full answer last week exactly what we were to introduce. I then pointed out the exact position, and that remains applicable until the Bill is published, when, of course, he will see it.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman sounds more forthcoming than he was last week. He said that they are to publish the Bill. Does he mean the Bill which we introduced? If not, will he say whether he intends to maintain the safeguards for elderly miners?

Mr. Whitelaw: Whether I said "a Bill" last week or "the Bill" this week, the fact is that the Bill is the Bill which we are to introduce. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the Bill and see what it has in it. But I must point out that I made perfectly clear last week the general provisions that were to be in the Bill and I stand by this.

Mr. John Mendelson: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity will seek to intervene in the debate on the Adjournment later this afternoon to give the House an account of the Government's attitude to the dock strike?

Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity will make a statement on the dock dispute shortly after business questions. He has told me that he will listen carefully to the debate on the Adjournment Motion. But I think that the hon. Gentleman should first await his statement.

Mr. Swain: Since a Press conference was given by the Minister of State at the Ministry of Technology yesterday to outline a possible shortage of smokeless fuel and the possibility of conversions, in which it was said that a letter had been sent to local authorities and users of smokeless fuels, is it possible for the Minister of State to make a statement to the House outlining what was contained in that letter? May we be told of any decisions which have been arrived at by the Minister of Technology about conversions of power stations, and may we be given an assurance that no decision will be announced during the Summer Recess?

Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend the Minister of State set out the position in answer to a Written Question. I will ask him fully to inform the hon. Gentleman on any other matters not covered by that answer. I could not give, nor have any Government ever given, any commitment about such decisions.

Mr. Iremonger: When the Government make their decision on arms for South Africa, will the Leader of the House debate Motion 48 which is in my name?

[That this House, rejecting socialism as emphatically as did the majority of]


the British people who so recently elected it, would regretfully support Her Majesty's Government if after consideration it decided to sell to the Union of South Africa warships, armament, aircraft and equipment to help the Royal Navy protect British merchantmen bringing vital supplies round the Cape from attack by socialist navies; is not convinced that the possibility of such attack is so remote as properly to be disregarded by Her Majesty's Government; notes that the avowed intention of the cruel and oppressive socialist powers, including the grotesquely misnamed People's Republic of China, is to destroy the free world and that such is not the avowed intention of the equally cruel and oppressive South African régime (though the latter is in a fair way to doing so unintentionally); recognises a parallel between the odious necessity of reaching a military accommodation with the socialist fatherland during the second German war and the necessity of a comparable accommodation with South Africa now; hopes that African nations nursed by Great Britain to independence will eventually develop into reliable allies in the cause of freedom and will produce régimes less cruel and oppressive than those of the socialist powers which seek to dominate them, but doubts whether sacrifice of Great Britain's security by Her Majesty's Government would hasten such a transformation; believes that any nation that might declare itself an enemy because we protect our lifelines even with South African help is not worth cultivating for a friend; has no intention of jeopardising national security at the behest of leftists obsessed with neurotic guilt about race; and has even less intention of being bludgeoned into any policies by a non-mandatory resolution of the United Nations which is notoriously and cynically exploited by the enemies of freedom throughout the world and the humbug and double standard of which have long sickened the British people.]

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that I can promise a debate on my hon. Friend's Motion, although I have carefully noted its terms.

Mr. Hattersley: Several times during the last five weeks we have been promised imminent statements on the future of certain regiments. Are those statements

about to be made? If we are not to have a statement before the House rises, may we be assured categorically that the statement will be made in this House?

Mr. Whitelaw: No statement on this subject is being made before the House rises. As is the case with all Governments, I can give no commitment on what decisions may be taken thereafter.

Sir R. Cary: Could the House be told the likely day for the ballot for Private Members' Bills?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am afraid I could not indicate that at this moment, but I will investigate and let my hon. Friend know as soon as possible.

Mr. Alfred Morris: If it becomes necessary to recall the House earlier than expected, will the right hon. Gentleman, in order to avoid hardship to many hon. Gentlemen opposite, make sure that there is no clash with the opening of the grouse shooting season?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that there is much for me to say, except that the Regulations on the emergency come to an end on 15th August. If, alas, there has been no settlement by that date—and, naturally, we all hope very much that there will have been—the House will have to come back to renew the Emergency Regulations.

Mr. John Page: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides and the country are grateful for an opportunity of an early debate on metrication. Can my right hon. Friend say whether we shall have a Blue or White Paper on the subject before the time of the debate?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I cannot enter into any commitment about a Green or White Paper, but I will draw my hon. Friend's view to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. Healey: On the point about the future of certain regiments, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence said in this House on Monday that he hoped to make a statement this week? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what has gone wrong—or is it simply that the Government are trying to avoid


the wrath of their members on the final decision?

Mr. Whitelaw: Nothing has gone wrong.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and secure from him an assurance that no announcement about increased postal charges will be made while the House is in recess and that any decision to increase charges will not be taken until the proposal has been presented to the House on our return?

Mr. Whitelaw: I could not possibly give any such assurance, any more than any Government which the hon. Gentleman supported in the past gave.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Early Day Motion No. 24 on concessionary fares for retired people, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox)?
[That this House calls upon the Government to urge yet again the Greater London Council, to enter into discussion with the London Boroughs as to the means by which a concessionary fares scheme for retired people can be introduced within the Greater London area because the continued failure so to do, is not only unjust to retired people in the Greater London area, but constitutes a discriminatory policy against them which should be terminated.]
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's well-known sympathy for aged people and in view of the fact that there is a need for a debate on the subject, will the right hon. Gentleman, since backbench hon. Members on both sides of the House are in favour of this principle, take the action suggested in the Motion so that we need not ask him for a debate in the first week when we return?

Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly I have noted the Motion. However, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, responsibility for concessionary fares in London rests with the London boroughs and the City of London. Neither my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport nor the G.L.C. has power to intervene.

Mr. George Thomas: Will the Leader of the House give consideration to an early debate on Welsh affairs?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Mikardo: If it should come about, about, as I understand may be the case, that there is an announcement before the recess of the intention to close the Royal Mint, will the Leader of the House bear in mind that there are grave doubts on both sides of the House about the wisdom of this course? As the matter is not urgent, can he assure us that no irrevocable decision will be made until the House has had an opportunity of debating the matter?

Mr. Whitelaw: I thought that this decision had been made by the previous Government. However, I will look into what the hon. Gentleman has put forward. Obviously, I could not enter into any sort of definite commitment of the kind for which he asks.

Mr. Latham: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the Motion appearing in his name on the Order Paper today, which is closely related to Early Day Motion No. 8?
[That the matter of the rights of hon. Members of this House who have been committed to Her Majesty's Prisons, and of their constituents, be referred to a Select Committee to be appointed for this purpose, and that they do consider and report, in particular, what action should be taken if any person deliberately delays the receipt of mail by an hon. Member, interferes with a Member's right to correspond with any constituent, member of Her Majesty's Government, Department of State or another Member of this House, forcibly prevents a Member from attending this House, or prevents a Member who wishes to do so from interviewing a constituent or a fellow Member who is assisting him in the conduct of his constituency business.]
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there will be any consultation before this evening about the possibility of tabling Amendments, subject to what the Chair may rule at 10 o'clock? In addition, may I, without intending any slur, ask whether he could possibly ensure that the Home Secretary and other Ministers concerned with the Home


Office and Ministers of other Departments who may be implicated in some of the events which have led to this situation should be present during the debate, together with the Government's Law Officers, who may be able to assist us?

Mr. Whitelaw: As for any possibility of amending my Motion, it is a matter for Mr. Speaker to decide whether he is prepared to take manuscript Amendments. Naturally, I could not comment on any Amendment until I saw what the hon. Gentleman had in mind.
As for the attendance of various other members of the Government, it was my hope that in this matter of a reference to the Committee of Privileges the House might be content with me. I think that I know as much about these problems now as anyone, and that I should be able to deal with the matter myself. I will do my best. What we shall be debating tonight is whether we should refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Committee of Privileges is one of the most senior Committees of this House. I think that it is the right body to deal with all these detailed matters.
I have gone a long way in proposing this Motion before the recess, and I hope that in the circumstances the hon. Gentleman will think it fair that I should handle it myslf. The issue before us tonight is whether we should have this matter discussed in the Committee of Privileges, and nothing more.

Mr. Driberg: While I fully accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said about his readiness to meet us at least half-way on the matter, may I ask whether he appreciates that in what he has said there is some danger that the debate may be limited narrowly to the reference to the Committee of Privileges, and nothing else. It is a matter for the Chair, of course; but there is the likelihood that hon. Members will seek to raise the case of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) in the debate on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House for the Summer Recess, so as to be sure of being able to discuss it as widely as possible.
In addition, since there are a large number of matters to be raised in the debate on the Motion for the Adjournment

for the Summer Recess, of which the most important, but not the only ones, are the dock strike and food prices, will the right hon. Gentleman, apart from dealing with the later debate himself, also do his best to ensure that various Ministers come here to deal with the subjects that hon. Members raise?

Mr. Whitelaw: What is in order both in the rebate on the Motion for the Adjournment and in the debate on the Privileges Motion, is, naturally, a matter for Mr. Speaker and not for me. Therefore, I must leave it there.
As for the attendance of various Ministers during both debates, certainly I will see what I can arrange. After all, I should find it very agreeable to have some companions. But if I do not have companions, I will ensure that I get full answers from the Departments concerned to any questions which hon. Members may raise. I do not suppose that I shall be able to satisfy all of them with my answers, but I will endeavour to get answers from the Departments concerned.

Mr. Molloy: Is the Leader of the House aware that when the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications made his announcement of a probable 50 per cent. increase in postal charges he also said that he would be consulting the Post Office Users' National Council? If there is any such decision and if the Minister decides to consult a body outside this House before announcing his decision, surely this House ought to have the right to discuss the matter.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that I can add anything to what I said in answer to previous questions on the same subject.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: In view of the uncertainty over the last two years and more amongst Fleet Air Arm personnel about their future, will my right hon. Friend encourage his right hon. Friend to make an early public announcement about the future of the aircraft carriers—and a favourable one?

Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly I will call the attention of my right hon. Friend to what my hon. and gallant Friend has said.

Mr. Rose: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's reply concerning tonight's debate, does not he underrate the


importance of this debate from a constitutional point of view? Is he aware that there are very serious problems regarding the devolution of powers to another Parliament and extremely complex problems about the governorship of prisons either from this House or from Stormont, and that it is vital that a senior Law Officer should be present during the debate?

Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. Obviously, I cannot guarantee this, but I will see what I can do. I must point out that it is just because great constitutional problems are involved that I have sought to put before the House a Motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges. I think that it is reasonable for me to say that these detailed and complex problems are probably better ventilated and seriously considered in the Committee of Privileges than on the Floor of the House, though I quite agree about the right of hon. Members to put forward their points of view in the forthcoming debate. The Government having taken the view that it is right to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges, I am sure that the House will see the value of having detailed discussions in that Committee rather than on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Carter: I should like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Motion No. 14 which concerns the future of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation.
[That this House deplores the declared intention of restricting the present activities of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation; fears that this may be the prelude to its complete abolition; and urges Her Majesty's Government to make an early definitive decision on this matter to remove uncertainty in industry.]
Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Minister of Technology makes no statement on this subject until the House comes back in the autumn as the right hon. Gentleman has had ample opportunity in the past to come before the House and make a statement?

Mr. Whitelaw: If my right hon. Friend had had an announcement to make at this stage about a decision, he would no

doubt have come before the House to make a statement. As I said in response to earlier questions, I will pass on to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman has said. I cannot give a commitment any more than any previous Governments have done so in the past.

Mr. Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to pursue with the Chair the answer given to me earlier by the Leader of the House. Would it not be an infringement of the courtesies of the House to criticise a Minister in his absence? Would it not, therefore, be unfortunate if we were put in the position of having to blame the Leader of the House for the sins of his colleagues, particularly as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has conferred upon him the title "Reverend"?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that it would be reasonable to demand that all members of the Government should be present. Nor do I think that the corollary would be true, that if a Minister was not present an hon. Member could not attack him. Ministers can be criticised even if they are not here.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MINISTERIAL MEETING)

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Anthony Barber): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like, as promised, to make a brief report on the meeting at Ministerial level between the United Kingdom and the European Communities, which was held in Brussels on 21st July.
At the invitation of the Communities, I went through the list of questions which we wished to see covered in the negotiations, but my immediate objective at this meeting was to have put in hand by the Conference certain fact-finding work which, I believed, in the interest of both the Communities and ourselves, should form the basis for much of the negotiations for our entry into the Communities.
I therefore put forward specific proposals for fact-finding work in the following fields:

(1) agriculture and agricultural finance;
(2) dairy products including New Zealand's vital interest in this sector;


(3) Commonwealth sugar;
(4) the Common External Tariff;
(5) the complex task of agreeing authoritative translations of Community legislation, and certain related matters;
(6) the European Coal and Steel Community; and
(7) Euratom.

By the end of the meeting it was agreed that work should be put in hand on all these subjects with the single exception of Euratom. On most of these subjects we shall be in close and continuing touch with the Commission, which has been entrusted with the task, on the Community side, of conducting with us many of these fact-finding exercises. I hope that we shall then be able to establish certain objectively agreed factual data on which the negotiation of solutions can be based.
Bearing in mind the proposals which I had put forward and the decisions which were taken, the outcome of the meeting was very satisfactory—[Interruption.]

MR. SPEAKER pursuant to Standing Order No. 26 (Power of Mr. Speaker to adjourn House or suspend sitting), suspended the Sitting of the House.

Sitting suspended at twenty-five minutes to Five o'clock and resumed at half-past Six o'clock.

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that a man was taken into custody by the Serjeant at Arms in connection with the recent incident. I have directed that he be given into the custody of the civil police.

Mr. Barber: After that incident, which I understand had nothing whatever to do with the subject matter of the statement that I was making, I think it would probably be for the convenience of the House if I were to start again at the beginning.
I was making a brief report on the meeting at Ministerial level between the United Kingdom and the European Communities which was held in Brussels on 21st July.
At the invitation of the Communities, I went through the list of questions which we wished to see covered in the negotiations, but my immediate objective at this meeting was to have put in hand by the

Conference certain fact-finding work which, I believed, in the interests of both the Communities and ourselves, should form the basis for much of the negotiations for our entry into the Communities.
I therefore put forward specific proposals for fact-finding work in the following fields:

(1) agriculture and agricultural finance;
(2) dairy products including New Zealand's vital interests in this sector;
(3) Commonwealth sugar;
(4) the Common External Tariff;
(5) the complex task of agreeing authoritative translations of Community legislation, and certain related matters;
(6) the European Coal and Steel Community; and
(7) Euratom.

By the end of the meeting it was agreed that work should be put in hand on all these subjects with the single exception of Euratom. On most of these subjects we shall be in close and continuing touch with the Commission, which has been entrusted with the task, on the Community side, of conducting with us many of these fact-finding exercises. I hope that we shall then be able to establish certain objectively agreed factual data on which the negotiation of solutions can be based.
Bearing in mind the proposals which I had put forward and the decisions which were taken, the outcome of the meeting was very satisfactory. I should like to pay tribute to the helpful and constructive way in which the Conference was guided by Herr Scheel, the Federal German Foreign Minister, who, as President of the Council of Ministers of the Six, acted as its spokesman.

Mr. Healey: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving us this report. I trust that in future he will give regular reports on his negotiations. As I understand it, the process at the moment between Her Majesty's Government and members of the Common Market is essentially to find out the facts.
Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he accepts that the estimate made by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on the cost of the common agricultural policy alone might be as high as £670 million a year?


If so, we would all on both sides of the House regard it as totally intolerable.
Secondly, we noted that yesterday the right hon. Gentleman had the disagreeable experience of waiting for some hours in an anteroom while Common Market members sought agreement with one another on a point of procedure. Does the fact that he will be exploring the facts with the Commission rather than with the representatives of the six Common Market Governments mean that he is liable to continual repetition of experiences of this nature while the Six try to reach agreement among themselves on what the facts are before he is able to enter into discussion with them?
Finally, on the question of the negotiations themselves, can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects that the negotiations on matters of substance will begin, bearing in mind again what the Minister of Agriculture said about our need to know by early summer next year what the chances are of getting in, and that a long negotiation would be quite unacceptable?

Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman raises four questions. First, he rightly anticipated that, as I am sure my predecessor in the previous Government would have done, I shall be reporting regularly to the House after ministerial meetings.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, about the figure of £670 million to which he referred, he will recall that that was the figure stated in the previous Government's White Paper, the economic assessment, as the contribution which might have to be made by the United Kingdom under the present Community financial arrangements. This is without any alleviation of any kind. But, as the White Paper made clear, it was a theoretical upper limit to our contribution. The White Paper went on to explain that, in practice, our contribution would be fixed within narrower limits. Again, the House will recall that the White Paper set out no terms for British entry. It was only an estimate of theoretical cost based on a variety of assumptions.
As for the waiting time during the negotiations which took place on Tuesday, I think that it was only reasonable that the Six should have the opportunity

of considering among themselves the seven detailed and specific suggestions which I made for work to proceed during the summer and beyond. This was the first ministerial meeting. The future arrangements for carrying out our work had not been settled. We had not attempted to settle them. This was the first working meeting. Consequently, I believe that in future a great deal of preparatory work will be done by officials fom the United Kingdom and by the Commission. On this occasion, it was reasonable that they should wish to consider among themselves what I had proposed.
I come back to the point which I made a moment ago. It was a very satisfactory outcome, certainly from our point of view, that six of the seven proposals that I put forward were, at the end of the day, found to be acceptable by the Communities.
On the final point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that when we 'meet again in the autumn and thereafter we shall be able to start negotiations on matters of substance.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions? The first concerns his reference to this being a fact-finding exercise. Is he aware that in all too many of these matters, particularly the agricultural levy and suchlike, the point is not that the facts are unclear but that they are unpalatable? Can he therefore say what indication there is from the Six that they are willing to undertake any radical revision of these matters? Secondly, are we to take it from the absence of any reference to political discussion in what he said that he is not participating in and is not informed about the deliberations of the Six in regard to what they call political unity?

Mr. Barber: On the first point, I stated that the Government were prepared to adopt the common agricultural policy subject to the points which I had made clear, for example, that we would want to discuss certain practical problems which might arise connected with subjects such as milk, pig meat and eggs, and problems concerning our hill farmers, and so on. The previous Government also made plain that they were prepared to accept the common agricultural policy.


Indeed, neither the previous Government nor ourselves would have been realistic if we had thought that we could enter these negotiations on any other basis. But this does not mean that, in a variety of other spheres, there is not a great deal to be discussed.
My right hon. and learned Friend said that some aspects of Community policy are unpalatable. We have never sought to disguise the fact that there will be certain short-term disadvantages. But it is also the case that were we able to join on reasonable terms this would enable us to improve our growth rate and, as a result, our standard of living would rise at a faster rate than would otherwise be the case. I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that when the Common Market was formed output per head in the United Kingdom was higher than in any of the Six countries, except Luxembourg. Today output per head in the United Kingdom is lower than in any of the Six countries, except Italy.

Mr. Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I may be raising a matter which more senior Members than myself should be raising. However, as no one has raised the point, I intend to make it.
It may be that I am less resilient than some hon. Members, but there are those of us—I am one—who find it extremely difficult to cope with the conditions in the Chamber at this point. Some hon. Members have already left the Chamber because they find the conditions too difficult. There may be some who are more allergic to this noxious substance than others. It seems unsatisfactory that some hon. Members should feel unable to stay in the Chamber for that reason. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is reasonable to have a further period of suspension in the hope that conditions might get better, or whether there is any possibility of alternative accommodation. I do not know what difficulties there may be, but the Lords are not sitting. I submit that it is unfair and unjust that some hon. Members should be unable to stay in the Chamber. I will stay with the rest if we must, but many have felt compelled to leave.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman in his last sentence said what most of us are feeling, that we will stay if we must.

We have business to transact. We are conducting the business under conditions which are not exactly what they were before the incident happened. We had to strike a compromise and find a point at which we might be uncomfortable but still efficient.

Mr. Grimond: I should like to ask about two matters which are omitted from the list of subjects to be investigated. One is the fishing industry and the other is regional policy, on which I should think there are many facts to be ascertained about the methods of helping what are sometimes called the underdeveloped regions and how far this can be done under Community regulations.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, although these subjects are left out of the list, they are to be taken into account in the negotiations?

Mr. Barber: Yes, indeed. In my opening statement at Luxembourg I referred to the fisheries policy. But the right hon. Gentleman will know that the Six have not yet agreed on a common fisheries policy.
We shall most certainly also want to consider regional policy. I found that a good deal of work had been done by the Commission on regional policy and that it knows a good deal about the way that our regional policy works.
The list is by no means exclusive. It was simply that we thought it desirable to propose that certain work should be put in hand on a number of matters, some of major consequence on which it wil take quite a long time for the exercise to be completed, and others on which it will be easier, concerning fact-finding, to reach conclusions. However, it is by no means exclusive.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his safe return from the perils of foreign travel to the comparative safety of this House and also on his skilful and determined opening of negotiations on Britain's behalf.
May I ask whether the Commissions have been given a deadline by which they must report so that we may know when the negotiations of substance are likely to begin?

Mr. Barber: No deadline was agreed upon at the meeting of Ministers, but


obviously we shall be following closely the work which is taking place and certainly I shall wish to contact my opposite number in the Six if it looks as though this work is not proceeding at a reasonable rate. I think I ought to say that, quite apart from this work, officials from the United Kingdom will be in continuous touch with officials from the Commission. Consequently I hope and believe that we shall make reasonable progress although obviously some reports on these various matters will come to Ministers earlier than others because some will be simpler than others.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman referred to a fact-finding mission that has been set up. Did he explain to the Common Market countries that neither this Government nor the previous Government ever had a mandate from the people to commence negotiations, and neither has this House of Commons had an opportunity of passing a judgment on whether negotiations should or should not commence, or even continue? Will he explain that to them when he gets back next time?

Mr. Barber: What I made clear in some of the conversations I had with the Ministers and others was that all three parties, I understand, at the last General Election included in their manifestos a proposal to open negotiations in the hope that reasonable terms could be found. I also made quite clear to them in my opening speech at Luxembourg that none of us at this stage could know whether the negotiations would succeed and that there were obvious limits beyond which no United Kingdom Government could go. It is reasonable to start with this fact-finding exercise. Perhaps I should tell the House that on a notice board in the Press room, which held well over 100 Pressmen, after I had been telling about this fact-finding exercise there appeared a notice saying. "If anyone should find any facts in this building, please return them to the British delegation."

Sir R. Russell: What plans has my right hon. Friend for fact-finding for products other than sugar and produce by New Zealand?

Mr. Barber: The fact-finding has been limited to the two very important dairy

products, including New Zealand's produce and we thought it reasonable to start with these.

Mr. Barnett: I wish the right hon. Gentleman success in these negotiations. Will he confirm that when he states that he accepts the agricultural policy with certain exceptions, that does not necessarily mean that he accepts that we shall have to make a contribution to the agricultural fund of the size set out in the February White Paper? While one welcomes the fact that he comes here and tells us what he has done in the negotiations, will he deal with the question which I put to him on Monday, that it was reported that his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had agreed with the French Foreign Secretary that we would agree with their policy on exchange rate variations? In view of the fact that there could be nearly two years further negotiations, surely this would bring an outrageous commitment to accept. Would he deny that that has been done?

Mr. Barber: I made the position absolutely clear over the agricultural policy and, as I said, it would be wholly unrealistic to have entered negotiations unless one was prepared to adopt the common agricultural policy. On the second point, no proposals have been put to the British Government on the question of exchange rates. I see from what I have read in the Press that there have been certain discussions, but all I know is that there are no proposals put forward by the Six which in any way conflict with our obligations to the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. Marten: Following that decision, is it not up to this Government, as the question of European currency is a very important question, to ask about it and to find what is going on to be in a position to tell the House? On the second point, on the fact finding can my right hon. Friend say whether those doing the fact finding are going out into the world to find the facts, for example, about the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement? Will they visit places like Fiji where the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is so vitally important and see this matter on the ground, rather than just working on papers?

Mr. Barber: We shall have the opportunity, as would be only reasonable, of


submitting in connection with the fact-finding exercise our own assessment of the facts and of the consequences of joining. Perhaps I should make clear, as there may be some misunderstanding about it, that the facts—which we hope will be agreed—in all these sectors, and certainly in the important sector of Commonwealth sugar, are the facts which would apply in the event of a British Government being given no alleviation and no transitional periods whatever. It is only reasonable, therefore, I should have thought, to set to work on actual negotiations when we know the facts. In so far as they are known, one hopes that they will be agreed. It may not be possible to agree all the facts, but we shall then at least know the area of difference.
On the question of international money matters, and exchange rate flexibility in particular, the fact is—I do not think I can be more frank with the House than this—that Her Majesty's Government have received no approaches from the European Economic Community on this subject. We are, as will be appreciated, in close touch on such matters with Community Governments and with those of other countries in bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and the Group of Ten. All I can say is that, on the information we have at the moment, we see no incompatibility between the aims of the International Monetary Fund in these fields and those of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I thank the Minister for his help in making this statement, but is he aware of the widespread feeling that he was treated with gross discourtesy and suffered some indignity in Brussels? Does he realise that the people of this country do not want British Ministers to be waiting behind locked doors, and they want an end of grovelling? Further, can he say whether there has been any talk with the French, between the Foreign Secretary and M. Schumann, about Anglo-French nuclear sharing in this context?

Mr. Barber: On the first matter, all I can say is that the hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. No one in his right mind, if I may say so with great respect, would suggest that we

were kept behind locked doors. Perhaps I can put this also to the hon. Gentleman. If the Governments of the Six through their spokesmen had put to me the seven important proposals which I put to them, the first thing that I should most certainly have done would have been to ask for an adjournment so that I could consider them with my officials. I consider that it was wholly reasonable that they should wish to do so. Indeed, I anticipated it. One consequence of the adjournment was that, while they were considering these matters, I saw a number of the Foreign Ministers privately, bilaterally, and also various other members of the delegation who were concerned with these matters, and had some very useful exchanges.
I add this word to the hon. Gentleman, and I say it with deliberation. If he thinks that, on matters as complex as this, negotiations should always take place without any adjournments for either side to consider proposals which are made, he just does not understand; he would never reach the end of the negotiations.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: One recognises that the Community has not stood still since the earlier negotiations conducted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. May we take it in general terms that the concessions which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister obtained for Commonwealth countries, although not for Australia and New Zealand, are there; or do we have to start all over again?

Mr. Barber: I hope that the fruits of those negotiations and much of the work conducted on behalf of Her Majesty's Government by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in fields such as, for example, independent Commonwealth countries and certain dependent territories outside the categories of what one might call the sugar countries and New Zealand, will enable us on this occasion to cut down the amount of negotiation which would otherwise be necessary.

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised a specific point with the right hon. Gentleman about Anglo-French nuclear sharing. The right hon. Gentleman did not answer me, though I recognise that this may have been a slip.

Mr. Barber: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs dealt with this in the statement he made on his return from Paris. Matters of defence form no part of the negotiations in which I am concerned.

Mr. Jay: Did the Chancellor of the Duchy have the authority of the Cabinet for apparently accepting on behalf of Britain the general substance of the common agricultural policy, because he certainly has no authority for it from the House and it means surrendering major British interests before the negotiations start?

Mr. Barber: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is not the custom to say that some decision is or is not a Cabinet decision. This is the policy of Her Majesty's Government. What is more, it was stated quite clearly by the present Prime Minister before the last election.

Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread recognition that to give any credibility at all to the negotiations he would have to accept the principle of the common agricultural policy? Will the fact-finding committee which will be dealing with this subject be used by Her Majesty's Government to indicate to our prospective partners the determination of this Government to increase United Kingdom agricultural output to that our own prospective partners will know that the available United Kingdom market for their surpluses is a good deal less than is popularly supposed?

Mr. Barber: I certainly hope that as a result of our negotiations the output of agriculture in Britain will increase. This is certainly our intention. It is the intention of our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I saw somewhere a suggestion that in some way we were to be pressed to curtail or diminish the output of British agriculture. No. such suggestion has been made.

Mr. English: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if we were in the Common Market we could not be cross-questioning him as we are now or, for example, cross-questioning the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
Amongst his points why did not the right hon. Gentleman raise the possibility

that the Common Market might have a democratic assembly where such questioning of Ministers would be permissible?

Mr. Barber: I do not accept the points made by the hon. Gentleman. Joining the Common Market would certainly not preclude the cross-examination of Ministers in this Parliament.

Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend be seeking to safeguard the vital interests of certain Commonwealth primary producers by seeking to have their needs embodied in a form of treaty similar to the Yaoundé Convention with similar privileges conferred on the signatories?

Mr. Barber: We certainly hope that some countries will be able to have an association with the Community on the basis of a renegotiated Yaoundé Convention.

Mr. Palmer: If I understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, Euratom is left out of immediate consideration. Is not that surprising in view of the great commitment of Britain to nuclear science and technology?

Mr. Barber: I should have liked all of the seven sectors to be included in the fact-finding exercise, but as after consideration the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, the Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany, announced that they were content to accept fact-finding exercises in six of the seven areas that I put forward I did not feel that it would have been reasonable at that stage to have pressed for an immediate investigation into Euratom.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement concerning the common agricultural policy and accepting the principles of it, may I ask him to confirm that the method and the percentages of the payments into the Common Agricultural Fund will be open to negotiation when the fact-finding Commissions have finished their reporting and work on negotiating commences?

Mr. Barber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this point. Obviously the question of agricultural finance, which is the largest aspect of the Community budget, is of major importance—indeed, of crucial importance—to Britain. The fact-finding which will now proceed under the authority of this Ministerial


conference will certainly include the question of agricultural finance.

Mr. Sheldon: Has any undertaking been given by the Government that will limit our taking advantage of any widening of exchange rates that may be authorised by the I.M.F.?

Mr. Barber: I thought that I had made the position clear. No approach has been made to Her Majesty's Government about exchange rates.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Will my right hon. Friend accept it from me that, despite the tenor of the questions that have been thrown at him this evening, a very large element of thinking people in this country welcome this start to these negotiations?

Mr. Barber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps I should say that I take it for eranted that when one makes a statement of this or any other kind in the House it is only natural that it should be those who are particularly concerned about certain aspects who put questions. The mere fact that the majority of questions which have been put to me on this matter this evening have been questions which, by implication, may have been somewhat critical, does not lead me to believe that there is not an overwhelming majority of hon. Members who appreciate that if we are able to join the Common Market on reasonable terms—and that is what we are determined to get—it will mean a considerable improvement in the standard of living of the British people.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear to me something which so far has not been made clear to me? Are these negotiations and the fact-finding commissions organised on the basis of whether we shall be modifying all our existing institutions to suit the Common Market, or is there any genuine possibility of the Common Market commissions changing some and even major parts of their way of life to suit the way of life in this country, or are we simply negotiating the terms how long and how much will have to be paid to get in?

Mr. Barber: Obviously, what we are to negotiate about is finding solutions to the problems, solutions which are acceptable both to the Six and the United Kingdom. As for transitional periods, I made

it clear at the meeting on Tuesday that I was not prepared to accept the view that the only means of solving these problems was necessarily to be by means of transitional provisions. In other words, I pointed out that at this stage I preferred to keep open the possibility that by further discussion and by mutual agreement we might in certain areas come to the conclusion together that a solution might be found in whole or in part by means other than simply transitional arrangements.

Mr. John Davies: Can my right hon. Friend tell us anything of the plans of the Community for negotiation with the African countries and the impact that these negotiations may have on our relationships within the European Free Trade Area?

Mr. Barber: I said that I hoped that we would be able to make satisfactory arrangements with the African countries and also the countries in the Caribbean for which, too, we have some responsibility.
As for E.F.T.A.; the arrangements which I have made are that after each of the Ministerial meetings—and this happened on this occasion—I will brief the E.F.T.A. ambassadors in Brussels and the Commonwealth ambassadors separately and the Irish ambassador separately. I did this on this occasion.
Our hope is that the two members of E.F.T.A., the Danes and the Norwegians, and the Irish, who are applying for full membership, as we are, will be successful with us in achieving full membership on reasonable terms. If so, we hope that arrangements could also be made for the non-applicant E.F.T.A. countries, so that at the end of the day we would hope that there would still remain free trade. However, this of course, is a consideration which can be discussed only when we have made some progress and the other two E.F.T.A. countries and Ireland have also made some progress in the negotiations.

Mr. Carter: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster cited as evidence to support the negotiations the higher growth rate in the Common Market countries and the higher output per head. What evidence has he to support the view that this was brought about by the signing of the Rome Treaty? Second,


what evidence has he that Britain's growth rate and output per man would go up should we enter? I ask this simply because a large economic unit like the United States has a lower output per head than any other country in Europe, apart from Britain.

Mr. Barber: I do not accept the alleged fact which the hon. Gentleman has just stated. He must make up his own mind. I believe that in an enlarged market of over 200 million people our major industries and many of our minor industries would have a much better chance of growing than they would have in the smaller market which now exists. I happen to believe that this larger market will lead to faster economic growth and that this in its turn will lead to a quickening of the rising standards of living of the British people.

Mr. Carter: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. When the hon. Gentleman wants to raise a point of order he does not have to point to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Carter: On a point of order. My argument was neither on one side nor the other. I wanted to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman evidence to support his statement, and he has not given the evidence.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That often happens to a Member in this House.

Mr. Benn: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what arrangements are being made to allow both sides of industry, notably the C.B.I. and T.U.C., to be associated with the fact-finding so that the considerations he will be dealing with will also be reviewed by those likely to be affected?

Mr. Barber: That is a very important and valid point. I have taken steps, as I know my predecessor would also have done, to keep in close touch with the views of Britsh industry and the T.U.C. I hope to be seeing Mr. Victor Feather, and I think perhaps one or two people with him next week, all being well, if we can fix up a time.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

NATIONAL DOCKS STRIKE

The Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Robert Carr): I would like, with permission, to make a further statement on the national docks dispute.
All ports covered by the National Dock Labour Scheme and some others are now affected by the strike. Dockers have agreed in some cases to unload certain perishable cargoes in immediate danger of deterioration and to maintain some services to the Orkney and Shetland Islands, the Western Isles, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. In general, however, movement of imports and exports through the ports is at a standstill.
The Court of Inquiry began its work on Monday. At the conclusion of the public hearing this morning Lord Pearson said that as far as he could foresee hearings were now concluded but no doubt the parties would be prepared to assist the Court further if this proved necessary. I understand that Lord Pearson and his colleagues will now be considering their findings and concluding their report.
I am grateful to Lord Pearson and his colleagues for the urgency with which they are working. I am hopeful that the Court's report will be published early next week.
I am confident that the Court's report will give a full and objective analysis of all the relevant factors and I hope this will enable the parties to bring the dispute to an end. I shall be asking them to come and see me immediately the report is published.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that statement takes us very little further, that it does nothing to allay our anxieties about what will happen over the next few crucial days, and in particular that he said nothing about whether and when troops might be used?
Is he aware that the Transport and General Workers Union is doing everything in its power to keep the temperature down and avoid extending the strike, that it has recommended dockers to move perishable cargoes, with certain safeguards, and that all those who are closely concerned with the docks believe that the


use of troops would do more harm than good?
Can the right hon. Gentleman therefore give the House an assurance that there will be no question of introducing troops into the docks until there have been further negotiations on the basis of the report of the Court of Inquiry?

Mr. Carr: The Government, the employers and the union are certainly doing all they can to keep the temperature down. I hope the right hon. Lady will do the same. [Interruption.]

Mrs. Castle: Cheap!

Mr. Carr: As for the use of troops, the Government took emergency powers because they have an over-riding duty to sustain essential supplies and services for the community. When and if—and only when and if—it is necessary to use those powers in any way, the Government will not hesitate to do so, but we sincerely hope that it will not be necessary.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been and is in contact with Mr. Jones and other union leaders. They have made a statement which I very much welcome and which I hope will be followed by the local union organisation in the various ports. If it is, and if essential supplies are kept moving—to keep supplies going for the use of the community and in sufficient quantity also to give some reasonable chance of maintaining reasonable stability of prices—then certainly troops will not be used. However, the Government must maintain their duty—I want to make this clear to the House—to the community as a whole.

Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the statement which had been made by the leader of the T. & G.W.U. and the letter that went to the Home Secretary outlining the policy which the trade union would follow. Can he give an undertaking that the employers have been prepared and have shown themselves willing to accept terms such as those outlined by Mr. Jones as to the conditions under which perishable cargoes would be handled? Is the right hon. Gentleman bringing pressure to bear on the employers to agree that all profits, savings and so on go to recognised charities?

Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, asking questions about matters for which I am not directly responsible. As I said, the Home Secretary is in close touch about this. We are most anxious to keep supplies going and certainly most anxious to ensure that nobody should gain profits out of the present situation.

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, as he indicated in his statement, that there has been considerable and welcome co-operation nom the dockers in the north of Scotland, particularly in moving supplies to and from my constituency? This is extremely important and should be acknowledged and extended. I understand that in most cases they are working without remuneration. On the other hand, there is anxiety about certain cargoes, including perishable ones such as fish and eggs, which in other parts of the country are moved by road and are not affected by the strike. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear this in mind.

Mr. Carr: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall bear that in mind and that we are appreciative of what is being done in many areas voluntarily. We very much hope that this can continue. However, it is just for the sort of vital reasons which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned that the Government—I believe any Government—must maintain their right to keep those supplies going by whatever means may be necessary.

Mr. John Mendelson: Since it seems that the House will not be sitting when the Court of Inquiry reports, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that as courts of this kind normally do not propose precise figures but point in the direction of a settlement, he will insist that the employers change their view of negotiating, even though the strike may continue, so that the one rigid aspect may be removed from the difficult situation in which we find ourselves?

Mr. Carr: I could not demand of either side a promise that it would accept whatever came out from the inquiry. I am sure that with the establishment of a court of this weight, making its full objective analysis, the recommendations flowing from it will inevitably be given the gravest consideration by both sides. I


shall certainly attach great weight to its findings. I trust that the parties will do likewise. As I have told the House, as soon as I have the report I will ask them both to come and see me.

Mr. Mikardo: Is the right hon. Gentleman completely happy about the fact that when the Court of Inquiry reports the House will be in recess? If the answer to that is "No", as I suspect it will be, would he lean over a yard to his right and whisper in the ear of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and persuade him to arrange to lay a Motion before us a bit later today to ensure that the House will be sitting when the Court reports?

Mr. Carr: I am perfectly happy about the way things have proceeded [Interruption.] Of course I am not happy about the strike taking place, but I am happy about the way the Court of Inquiry is proceeding and the atmosphere in which it is proceeding. In the long tradition of this House we do not normally have debates on this sort of subject when courts of inquiry are reporting. If, by any misfortune, the findings of the Court of Inquiry do not lead to an end to the dispute, different circumstances will arise. The House would in any case in due course have to be recalled, if the dispute went on, within a relatively short time because the emergency powers would come to an end and might have to be renewed. As for next week, I do not believe that the chances of settling this dispute and bringing the strike to an end are prejudiced by the fact that the House may be rising tomorrow.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of dockers, certainly in the city of Bristol, will be the first to welcome the end of this strike?

Mr. Carr: I hope and believe that this is so, and I am sure that their feelings will be shared by all.

Mr. Bidwell: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree, when the strike is over, and we will all welcome its end, that he shares some responsibility for the present situation because when we had the national delegate assembly it narrowly decided on the strike. Was that not an indication that the employers and workers were very close to reaching some

sort of settlement and that a slight shift on the question of the basic rate of pay would probably have done the trick? Does he not further agree that if this inquiry points the finger that way this will have been one of the most needless strikes in history and he will have been responsible.

Mr. Carr: I do not intend to enter into that sort of debate now. When the strike is over if hon. Members feel that way they will no doubt find ways of saying so in this House.

Mr. James Hill: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on doing precisely what he has advocated the Opposition should do, namely, to keep the heat out of the situation. I am only surprised that on Friday—

Hon. Members: Question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a time for supplementary questions, not supplementary statements.

Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Friday the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was completely for conciliatory action and that we all agreed that this was the best method? I am completely surprised as you, Mr. Speaker, must be that in Southampton this does not seem to have worked.

Mr. Carr: I hope it will.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Having for 15 years represented the third biggest dockland in Britain, might I ask the Minister if he is aware that the dockers regard the introduction of troops as provocative? Does he appreciate that this is because many of the older men have long memories, way back to 1911? Secondly, is he aware that if he wants to end the strike quickly, as I am sure we all do, he must bring some pressure, must lean on the employers—[Interruption.] I am afraid it is necessary to improve what is regarded by the dockers as a completely inadequate offer to meet their claim.

Mr. Carr: It would not serve the cause of ending this dispute if I commented on the merits of the claims in the offing. That is what the Court of Inquiry is analysing in an independent and full manner. We and all parties must await the findings of the Inquiry and, when they get them, attach great weight and


consideration to them. I realise, with the hon. Member, the gravity of any decision to use troops. No one would wish to do so unless it were essential to maintain the proper flow of services for the community. I can only repeat that they would be used only if such a need arose, and I very much hope that it will not arise.

Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the complacency which he has shown this afternoon? Members of the public will feel that the House has some responsibility in discussing the Pearson Inquiry because the Government took powers on Monday which have an effect on the lives of all the people. Surely the House should sit next week so that it can consider the response of the Pearson Inquiry and try to assist in bringing about a settlement. Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that we should meet to discuss and pass an opinion on the Pearson Report?

Mr. Carr: I imagine that the House will soon be debating whether it should rise. I believe that past history under sucessive Governments and Ministers of Labour has shown that debating a controversial report about a dispute at the critical moment when the question of a settlement or non-settlement is in the balance is not useful or something which the House usually wishes to do.

Mrs. Castle: But would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the Court of Inquiry's report fails to produce a settlement, which we all hope will not happen, and the strike is further protracted, with a possible extension of it, we should not wait the limit of the 28 days before returning to renew the powers but should be recalled immediately?

Mr. Carr: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House who has been listening to and considering what has been said.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the position of some of the smaller ports and the effect which a prolonged strike can have on them, which might be absolutely catastrophic financially, particularly for the port of Wisbech, in my constituency? Has his attention been drawn to the letter in The Times this morning from the port

of Felixstowe, which is very serious reading? I fully endorse my right hon. Friend's resolution to ensure that essential services are provided to the general public, but does he agree that one of the most distasteful jobs which soldiers, sailors or airmen can have is to do work more properly done by men in civilian clothes?

Mr. Carr: The answer to all parts of what my hon. Friend has said is "Yes". No Government would wish to use troops in circumstances like these unless it were absolutely necessary to fulfil their duty to the community at large. But no Government should ever shirk that duty if, alas, it became necessary to do it.

Mr. Concannon: If and when the troops go into the docks, could some kind of message go out from here today that those troops are going in on orders from here and that the dockers could only make the situation much worse if they start shouting obscenities at the troops as they go in? Is not the best way of helping to send a message from here that the orders have come from this place and not elsewhere?

Mr. Carr: I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he has said. I certainly hope that the House of Commons as a whole could send a message to the country that we hope that the Court of Inquiry will lead to a rapid end to the strike, that we hope that meanwhile the dockers will voluntarily clear what goods are essential to the life of the community and that certainly if, alas, in any particular area that were not the case, the reluctant use of troops would indeed have the backing of Parliament, speaking for the people of the country.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Minister has quite rightly paid a tribute to Jack Jones and the Transport and General Workers' Union leadership in his appeal to the dockers to clear the perishable goods, and I think that in that the whole House would join. Is he aware, however, that if, as I hope will prove to be the case, the dockers decide to clear those goods, on the understanding that they get no pay and that the pay goes to charity, while not wishing to exacerbate the situation the dockers would feel very annoyed if, when they have cleared the goods, they then found that they landed


on the market, exorbitant prices were being charged, housewives were being held to ransom and no action was being taken by the Government except for the Minister of Agriculture to tell them to eat peaches? That is not good enough.
My dockers say, "We find that every time the Government will insist when it goes against us, but they will not take any positive action when they are asked to stop the terrible charging and profiteering that is going on at the expense of the housewife." Will the Government please take action on this?

Mr. Carr: Let the House also make clear its will that there should be no profiteering out of this situation.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is happening.

Mr. Carr: It is impossible to control every detail in a situation of this kind. The best way of ensuring that prices do not rise unreasonably is to keep a flow of supplies moving. It is always shortage and fear of shortage which leads to prices rising, for whatever reason. The greater confidence that we can create that there will be a flow of essential goods, the greater step we shall be taking to ensure that prices remain as steady as possible in these circumstances. Certainly, all of us would wish to prevent any profiteering out of the present circumstances.

Mr. Delargy: The Secretary of State has said several times that the troops will be moved in only to ensure or to maintain the flow of essential services. Could he be a little more precise? What does he mean by "essential services"? It has already been pointed out that the dockers are handling—without taking any money for it, by the way—medical supplies and perishable goods. What are these other essential services for which the troops ought to be sent in?

Mr. Carr: It is impossible to define in list form off the cuff all essential supplies and services, but, obviously, medical supplies and whole categories of food are the most important things of all. At a later stage—but, I hope, at a stage which we shall not reach—one comes to the question of vital raw materials to keep industry going. We are a long way from that stage yet and I hope that we shall not get there. One has to regard foods,

not only the most perishable foods, as being part of the essential supplies for the community. Let me repeat the hope, however—and I am sure that this is the wish of the whole House—that such supplies can be kept moving without any intervention.

Mr. Heffer: The basic issue in the dock strike is the question of an increase in the basic rate of pay. To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), if the inquiry comes down on the side of an increase in the basic pay, will the Minister use his good offices to lean on the employers to open negotiations and not remain in the ridiculous stance which they have adopted up to now of not discussing the question while the strike continues?

Mr. Carr: I have already said that I shall give great weight to the findings of the Court of Inquiry and that I hope both sides will also. I have also said that I am asking both sides to come to see me the moment the report is published. I do not believe that I should be encouraging the two sides to come to see me in the right spirit if in advance I said that I shall put pressure on one side or the other. Let me repeat, I shall put great weight on the findings of the Court of Inquiry when we have them.

Mr. James Johnson: Reverting to the earlier question by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), will the Minister do now what he failed to do and confirm that Mr. Jack Jones, the leader of the Transport and General Workers' Union, has spoken in similar terms about the behaviour of his members in this connection, and does not he think that Mr. Jones has given excellent advice to his members?

Mr. Carr: I thought that I had done so already. I had intended to do so and, if I did not speak clearly enough, I will do so again. I thought I said that my right hon. Friend had been in contact, that Mr. Jones had replied, and that he and Mr. O'Leary, the national docks officer of the union, had issued the recommendation to their members to keep supplies running.

Mr. Crouch: There is considerable concern about the rise in the price of dead meat, and the price of beef has gone


up by £1 a cwt. in the last few days. This has affected the price of live meat in live cattle markets. Whilst I know that it is difficult for the Government to exercise price control, this increase could become serious to people who live on limited incomes. Will the Minister consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

Mr. Carr: Yes, I certainly will.

Mr. Prescott: When the Minister appeals to the Transport and General Workers' Union and the dockers as a whole to consider removing perishable cargoes, will he take into account what has happened in Hull docks? Fruit retailers asked the dockers to move perishable goods and offered them extra money to be paid to charity for doing so; yet they were quite prepared to sell those goods at high prices. This is in open contempt of the price controls that the Government say they will impose.

Mr. Carr: I think that we should be well advised to leave these matters in local hands as much as we can and not try to raise temperatures about individual incidents. I have no doubt that there will be individual incidents which all of us may regret, and the fault will sometimes be in one place and sometimes in another, but the House could best serve the purpose of bringing the strike to an end by keeping these isolated incidents and difficulties in perspective of the whole.

Mr. Fitt: As the strike will affect ports in Northern Ireland, if it becomes necessary to employ troops in the docks in Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State say whether those troops will be under the command of the Northern Ireland Government or of this House? It may be that the Northern Ireland authorities will wish to put a different interpretation on the emergency from that which the House puts on it.

Mr. Carr: First, there is not a state of emergency at the moment in Northern Ireland—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am speaking literally and in technical truth in the sense we are talking about here. Troops come under the order of the Commander, but in any case any questions which are the responsibility of the Government must be addressed to one of my right hon. Friends.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

The Chairman of Ways and Means: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a brief personal statement.
In the course of the speech of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary during the debate on Supply yesterday, interventions of mine from the Chair—at c. 574 and later at c. 580 of HANSARD—could be construed as partisan. I wish to assure the House that no such intention was in my mind. I regret that in the stress of the moment my Rulings were expressed in words which caused offence. I wish to apologise on this account to the Leader of the Opposition and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).

CLERK OF THE HOUSE (LETTER)

Mr. Speaker: I was asked earlier this afternoon whether I would deal as a point of order with the matter of the letter which appeared in The Times this morning. I thought that this would be a convenient moment to do so. I can deal with the question only as one of order.
As the House was reminded yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell)—c. 540 of HANSARD—the duty of the Clerk of the House is limited to giving advice. In this field the Clerk of the House acts as adviser on matters of parliamentary law and procedure. He gives advice only to those who first seek it from him. He advises the Speaker and hon. Members who consult him. Also, he advises outside bodies, such as the Home Office, if they ask him, and as was done in this case, but he does not rule. That is Mr. Speaker's province. In the parliamentary sphere, the Clerk offers what I might call counsel's opinion, but he is not a judge. That is the function filled by the Speaker and other occupants of the Chair.
That is the position today, and only the House by Resolution can change what is now our parliamentary practice, which has been maintained for many generations, indeed for several centuries.
Mr. Speaker is constantly advised by the Clerk, and I take this occasion to say how deeply the whole House and especially Mr. Speaker are indebted to him for his untiring and devoted service to us all.

Mr. Michael Foot: In raising two further points of order on the matters you have put to us, Mr. Speaker, may I preface them by saying that all of us in the House concur in what you have said in tribute to the Clerk of the House. However, some of us believe that serious questions were raised by the occurrences of yesterday and by the publication of the letter. Some of us sought, therefore, to raise the matter afresh in the House today by the method of a Private Notice Question to the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot raise the issue of a disallowed Question. He can raise the matter, but he must not mention further the point regarding a disallowed Private Notice Question.

Mr. Foot: I was not seeking to question the Ruling and disallowance of the Private Notice Question, but I hope that I am in order in saying that the disallowance of that Question means that we have to raise by another method—that is by point of order to you, Sir—the question which some of us sought to raise in this connection.
The House is faced with this situation. The reply of the Clerk to an inquiry from the Home Office is published, whereas the request from the Home Office is not published. The House has not, therefore, been informed of the nature of the request which came to the Clerk of the House. We have only this abbreviated part of the correspondence.
I submit that it is proper on a point of order first to ask you, Mr. Speaker, that you give an instruction that the original letter from the Secretary of State for the Home Department which gave rise to the reply should be placed on the Table so that we may be aware of the nature of the request coming from the Home Office.
My second point of order is that the reply sent by the Clerk has been quoted by the authorities in Northern Ireland.

They have quoted the reply as meaning that even if the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) were able to come to the House and present herself at the Bar, it would not be possible for her to be sworn in. As you quite rightly say, Mr. Speaker, in your Ruling, no letter from the Clerk can constitute a ruling of this House, particularly in a hypothetical case such as this. It appears that the authorities in Northern Ireland have indicated that they have received information from authorities here, presumably the Home Office after taking into account the advice which it had from the Clerk. But when the authorities in Northern Ireland say that they are instructed or advised that if the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster came here she would not be sworn and that that would be according to the precedents of the House, they have misinterpreted the situation. Therefore, it should be made absolutely clear that there is nothing the Home Office was entitled to say to the authorities in Northern Ireland which could prevent them, if they so wished, making it possible for the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster to present herself. If she presented herself, it would then be your decision, Mr. Speaker, to decide whether she should be sworn in.
What some of us have sought to establish throughout the whole of these proceedings is that it is not possible for the authorities in Northern Ireland to say that they are prevented from taking the course of enabling the hon. Lady to come to this House. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will rule that nothing said in the letter by the Clerk constitutes a ruling of the House in any sense, but that it is merely advice given to somebody in the Home Office, and that the Home Office is not entitled, on the basis of that advice, to indicate to the Northern Ireland authorities that they should not allow the hon. Lady to come to this House. Many of us believe that the advice that should have been given by the Home Office to the authorities in Northern Ireland was that they should give her the facilities to come to this House and that no ruling that has come from this House in any way stands in the way of that taking place.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has said something of very great importance. He has endorsed what I said in my original Ruling. I have taken great care


throughout questions on this matter to make Rulings only on order. I have said that I could not rule on the matter of the oath-taking on a hypothesis. The only rulings which are of any value are the Rulings that the Chair has made. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The Clerk from time to time may give advice to Mr. Speaker, or to any hon. Member, but the rules of the House are the Rulings of Mr. Speaker. The other point about the letter is a matter that the hon. Gentleman must take up with the Home Secretary.

Mr. Foot: When you say, Mr. Speaker, that I should take up this question with the Home Secretary, that was exactly what I was seeking to do when at the beginning of these proceedings I sought to put down a Private Notice Question. It must be remembered that the House will shortly go into recess, and I should have thought that it is open to you, Mr. Speaker, to make an instruction, according to the rules of the House, that a document which has been referred to in the course of interchanges in the House should be laid before the House and presented to it before we proceed later with other matters which are not directly relevant to this matter but are associated with it.

Mr. Speaker: The document the hon. Gentleman refers to has not been referred to by the Home Secretary. I have no power to compel the Home Secretary to produce the document. The hon. Gentleman can request the production of the document.

Mr. C. Pannell: If I go beyond the questions of points of order into the subsequent debate on a reference to the Committee of Privileges—

Mr. Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. It would help if he confines himself to points of order since we shall be debating the broader issues a little later.

Mr. Pannell: I would like to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a passage from this letter because, with respect, I do not think that you have grasped the gravamen of the deep-seated unease that I have about it. The Clerk says:
I write now to confirm that the proposition would be entirely contrary to the law and custom of Parliament as I understand it and

on which I would advise the Committee of Privileges if they asked me to go before them as a witness (as they usually do).
I do not think that it is up to the Clerk to pre-empt the advice which he intends to give to the Committee of Privileges.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you referred to me as a member of the Committee of Privileges. I did not know at the time that it was a gentle rebuke. You said that you thought that it would be better that, as a member of the Committee, I waited to hear the evidence. My answer to that is that this case is unique. As it is unique, I must not prejudge it, but, of all people, the Clerk should not prejudge it. If I had not been a member of the Committee of Privileges I would have asked you to rule that there had been a prima facie case of breach of privilege on the part of the Clerk. I feel as strongly as that about it. The letter is quite improper.
You are the servant of the House and, on occasions, master of the House. The Clerk is your principal officer. He is an officer of the House, not a civil servant, and he need not go out of his way to assist a ferret-minded official from the Home Office. I feel this deeply. If this matter was likely to be referred to the Committee of Privileges, the Clerk had the duty more than most to keep his own counsel and reserve it to a Committee of this House. He had no right to take it outside.
I think that I understand your difficulty more, Mr. Speaker, having now read the letter. Yesterday, you said that you could not rule on a hypothetical matter. However, the Clerk has given a hypothetical reply. Officials like the Clerk have not only to please the majority of the House but to carry the good will of the minority. I cannot claim to speak for the majority, but this letter is bitterly resented and considered improper by a substantial number of hon. Members. I hope that it will never occur again.

Mr. Speaker: I want to make two comments. First, the right hon. Gentleman thought that I implied some rebuke when I referred to the fact that he is a member of the Committee of Privileges. That was the last thing in my mind. Everyone in the House respects the right hon. Gentleman, not only for his parliamentary knowledge but for his knowledge of the Committee of Privileges.
We shall be referring this matter to the Committee of Privileges. I take it that what the Clerk was doing was to say, "This is the kind of evidence that I would submit to the Committee of Privileges if I were asked".

Mr. John Mendelson: Mr. Speaker, I was among those yesterday afternoon who, after the Leader of the House made his contribution, advised some of my hon. Friends not to continue the debate. I thought that we had had a helpful statement from the right hon. Gentleman.
May I submit this point of order to you now? One of the aspects with which we were concerned yesterday afternoon has not yet been mentioned. It is the urgency, before the House adjourns, of coming to a decision in the proper quarters so as to allow the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) to come here tomorrow, which is the last possible day, and be sworn in.
Without prejudice to the debate that is to take place later on, which will be on the general principle—as I understand it, that is the way that the Leader of the House wants it—I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman, after taking advice from the Home Office, would be prepared to make a further statement that, in spite of the correspondence which has passed and to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) referred, the Government are now willing to use their good offices with Mr. Porter so that the hon. Lady may appear here tomorrow.
I urge this final point. The Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Porter, whom I and other hon. Members have met, is on record as saying that he has been guided in his decision by the advice that he received through the Home Office in London. Therefore, it would be logical that the Home Secretary could change this advice and thereby make it possible for Mr. Porter to allow the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster to appear here tomorrow morning.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have every sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said, but this is not a point of order for me. Throughout this historic occasion Mr. Speaker has taken the view that he may say nothing which expresses any

point of view on the political implications of what we are discussing.

Mr. McNamara: I want, with respect, to refer to the Ruling which you, Mr. Speaker, gave in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) when you said that the original inquiry that came to the Home Office should be referred to the Home Secretary for a reply. With respect, Mr. Speaker, surely this inquiry came to the learned Clerk of the House as an inquiry being made of him as the servant of the House. This letter will, in fact, be in the archives of the Clerk's Department. It is, therefore, under your control and, by your direction, it could be placed on the Table of the House being, as it is, in a sense a question directed to the House as a whole which requires an answer of its opinion through the Clerk. Therefore, I submit that hon. Members should be entitled to see it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ruled on that point when it was put to me by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).

Mr. Latham: I feel that I should acquaint you, Mr. Speaker, and the House with the contents of a telegram about this matter signed by Mr. Ivan Cooper, Stormont M.P., and Mr. Alan Morrison, who formed part of the deputation which made representations to Mr. Porter. The telegram reads:
Stormont Ministry of Home Affairs inform us this morning that they have been acting on the basis of a Home Office Memorandum dated 14th July"—
I ask the House to note that date—
which states, 'We have been advised by the House authorities that a Member cannot take the oath while serving a term of imprisonment.'
It is important that you, Mr. Speaker, should know of this telegram, because presumably such an authoritative statement could or should have been made only with your knowledge and approval, and, in fact, by you.
Furthermore, in an earlier submission to the House I reported that I understood that there had been a possible ambiguity in that the memorandum had said that a Member could not take the oath while in prison, which could have meant the physical place of taking it, or that the fact of being in prison precluded


the Member from so taking the oath. But this is an unambiguous quotation from the memorandum sent by the Home Office.
The letter to which reference has been made, which has been published, is dated 21st July, the day on which I was in Belfast and the day after the deputation had been to see Mr. Porter, and the memorandum on which he was rejecting the representations being made was dated 14th July.
I also want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House the fact that this is a matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) said, of extreme urgency, because further representations have been made today which I understand the Northern Ireland Minister of Home Affairs has said he will consider and to which he will give a reply when he knows of the Ruling which he had heard you were likely to make today. If damage has been done—I will not join in any of the criticisms which have been made—it is incumbent upon those who have perhaps inadvertently been responsible for that damage to seek immediate remedy and redress.
It would appear that once it is made clear that the Home Office memorandum on which Mr. Porter's ruling has been based is incorrect, it is possible that he would agree that the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster should fly here tomorrow to take the oath and thus overcome many of the difficulties.
Since I know and respect the fact that you will not rule on a hypothetical matter, would you please rule, as a fact, on something on which only you can rule, Mr. Speaker, which is that you have not ruled? That should be made quite clear to the Northern Ireland authorities so that they cannot use this as an excuse for refusing the hon. Lady the opportunity to stand at the Bar of the House tomorrow to take the oath.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for those comments, and I can rule straight away. I have not ruled in any shape or form that the hon. Lady, if she came to the Bar of the House, would not be called to take the oath. This is very important, and I am glad that the hon. Member has pressed the subject.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I urge you, without dealing with anything hypothetical, to make a statement as to the law of Parliament when it is clear and when it is plainly settled by precedent?
When my predecessor, Mr Bradlaugh, came to this House he appeared at the Bar. A protest was made, but Mr. Speaker Brand said, in effect, "I cannot hear any protest. This man is here with a writ of return. He will be sworn and when he is sworn I will meet him, and that is the first time I shall have met him."
Is not that precisely the situation if Miss Devlin were to appear here? She would stand at the Bar. She has been returned at a General Election and she would not, therefore, require a sponsor. She would walk to the Box and produce her return. At that point you do not inquire whether she is a reverend, a colonel or anything else. She is the person who appears in the return, she is sworn and you do not even see her until she comes to your Chair to receive your congratulations. This is the custom of Parliament. Why cannot it be declared publicly?
The only exception to this custom is when one has a Resolution of the House, which happens in the instance of a Member of the other place. If a person is a Member of the other place and attention is drawn to that fact, then he must not swear. Apart from that, a person swears and nobody can be heard until he or she is sworn. Then the Member goes to your Chair.
Cannot we just say that? That is all that is necessary so that the Parliament and Ministers of Northern Ireland may be aware of the practice of this House. That is all we ask, and, with the greatest respect, I cannot see why they should not be told by you that that is the practice of this House.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Further to that point of order. Before you rule on the point which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has put to you, may I strongly express the hope that you will not accede to that request, Mr. Speaker? One other consideration must be borne in mind, judging the circumstances of this case as I understand it. There could be certain circumstances in which the hon. Lady referred to might arrive at the Bar of the House in a way


which Parliament would certainly not condone—[Interruption.]—and I believe that one of the things that has been disturbing a great many hon. Members—

Hon. Members: What circumstances?

Mr. Russell Kerr: What is the innuendo?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am putting a point of order to you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that I shall be allowed to put it in the way I had originally intended. What I had in mind was that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster was convicted for an offence she committed when a Member of this House in the last Parliament. What has happened since the General Election has led to her incarceration. There are many ways in which someone in incarceration might eventually arrive at the Bar of this House, not all of them legitimate ways—

Mr. McNamara: Shame.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Not all of them would be legitimate ways. All of us who have ever tried to serve this House by taking the Chair, here or in Committee, have recognised all along that we must not rule hypothetically. I beg you not to accede to the request of the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The House and you, Mr. Speaker, have been put in an impossible position as a result of the correspondence which has passed between the Home Office and the Clerk. The Clerk should never have been asked to make any kind of ruling or to give any kind of advice to the Home Office because the Home Office was not a client of the Clerk. The analogy of counsel and client breaks down at that point. In that situation, what has happened now is that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster and the House have been severely prejudiced as a result of the advice which was given, quite innocently, by the learned Clerk.
In that situation it seems that there can only be some kind of exceptional way which will put the matter right in order that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster should not suffer as the result of that advice, without any kind of redress, because if this matter is not cured before tomorrow evening, then it cannot be

cured at all in relation to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster. What I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, is that in these exceptional circumstances it would be right for you to communicate directly with the Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland and make it plain from the Chair itself that no Ruling has been made on this matter, and that you would not be prepared to rule till the hon. Lady stood at the Bar of the House requesting the right to take the oath, and that in those circumstances any other advice which had been tendered, from whatever source, was completely without any authority. Unless this exceptional way is taken with your full authority behind it it is quite likely that this to-ing and fro-ing between officials will go on till the matter cannot be put right at all. I would ask you yourself to communicate with the Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is quite clearly a very real and difficult dilemma here. The House recognises that, and I hope that the House would agree that it would be the worst thing for the dignity of the House if the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster were brought to the Bar of the House and you, Mr. Speaker, were then to rule that she could not take the oath and that she had to go back again. That would be a disastrous situation for the dignity of this House, I should have thought.
I fully appreciate the Ruling which you have given, that you cannot decide a matter which is hypothetical. However, there is—and I think that this supports what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said—a passage in Erskine May under the heading of "Duties of the Speaker under usage", page 248. It reads as follows:
He rules on points of order submitted to him by Members on questions either as they arise or in anticipation".
I submit that in a case such as this, a unique case, and one where the dignity of the House is very much involved, it would be open to you to solve this dilemma by ruling in anticipation on the assumption that the hon. Lady were present in person and you then had to give your Ruling. If you were to decide that you could not


give an anticipatory Ruling of this kind and the hon. Lady were left in the position that she had to be brought here in order to be told that the Ruling was against her, that would be something which the House would at all costs wish to avoid.

Mr. Michael Foot: May I submit to you further, Mr. Speaker, that your Ruling today means that a fresh situation is created because you have ruled very plainly that no decision has been made that the hon. Lady would be debarred from taking the oath if she were to come here. I am glad to have your clear assent on that subject. In that situation it is clear that your authority has been usurped by the Home Office. The Home Office has taken on itself, as revealed by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham), as long ago as 14th July to intervene in a matter of this kind and to give advice to the Northern Ireland Government, advice which they have accepted.
In that respect the Home Office has exactly defied what the Leader of the House said yesterday should be the position. Yesterday the House fully agreed that the right hon. Gentleman had greatly helped us because he stated:
Whether the hon. Lady can present herself at the Bar of the House must, I imagine, be a matter for the Northern Ireland Government.
That is a position many of us have been seeking to establish for a long time. He went on to say:
the decision about whether she takes the oath is not something in which the Government have any standing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1970; Vol. 804, c. 547.]
If the Government have no standing it was utterly improper for the Home Office to communicate with the Northern Ireland Government, particularly through the Secretary of State who is charged with the duty of advising the Northern Ireland Government on these matters. It was improper for the Home Office to have taken this action whether on the advice of the Clerk or not.
Therefore I ask you to rule—and this seems to follow directly from what you have said—that an immediate investigation must be initiated by your office to discover how it is that the Secretary of State in this House should usurp the

rights of the House as a whole and, in particular, should usurp your rights and give to a subordinate Parliament of this country advice quite contrary to that which you have given the House today. I submit that the case is now clear that the Home Office has improperly used its power to give wrong advice based on wrong evidence as to what the rights of the hon Member for Mid-Ulster are. In other words, the Secretary of State for the Home Department has been guilty of exactly the offence which the Leader of the House said was improper. He said that the Government have no standing in this matter. Why, therefore, was it that the Government took on themselves to delay proceedings to such a degree that the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster has been denied her rights? This is what has happened. It is a very serious question and one on which you have to rule whether it is proper for the Secretary of State to act in this manner.

Mr. Speaker: The last submission by the hon. Member would be more proper in the debate coming ahead. [An HON. MEMBER: "It will be too late then."] Order. I am being addressed on a matter of order. I have said from the start of this that the only concern of Mr. Speaker is the order of the House, that the issues on which many hon. Members feel very deeply are issues for the House and issues for individual hon. Members. The hon. Member who first raised this matter, for instance, himself visited Armagh Gaol and tried to do something. It is quite in order for any hon. Member, except Mr. Speaker, to attempt in some way to meet the problem of the hon. Lady who is now in Armagh Gaol.

Mr. Foot: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the question I was raising as a point of order is not one which would fall naturally into the debate we are to have later, which is on a much more general question. What we are discussing is the question of who has thwarted the right of the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster to be present in the House and see whether she could take the oath. Some of us had thought previously that it was due to a confusion about the Rulings in the House, but that conclusion has been completely removed now, and you, Sir, have ruled quite clearly that the hon. Lady is not debarred in that sense.
However, advice has been given to the Government in Northern Ireland which has led them to believe that they are qualified and entitled to prevent the hon. Lady from coming here. That has been done on the basis of advice from the Secretary of State. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if it is not possible for you to rule on this matter, although I would have thought that it is possible for you to say that the Secretary of State for the Home Department has disobeyed the rules of the House, I suggest that the Leader of the House, particularly in view of his statement to the House yesterday, should secure the attendance of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the House as soon as possible to explain his conduct.

Mr. Orme: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Through you, Sir, I should like to press what my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has just said. The Lord President of the Council now has a duty to the House. Following your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which has been very clear today, that the hon. Lady could appear here, the right hon. Gentleman could now assist the House by clearing the lines with the Home Office and with the House that the hon. Lady could be brought here if he were to advise Mr. Porter in the Northern Ireland Government that this Government have no objection to her being brought to the House. If the right hon. Gentleman took that decision now asid told the House that at the moment, it would clarify the position.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Following the points of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that I perhaps owe it to the House and to hon. Members who have raised these matters, and in view of what I said yesterday, to say a few words at this stage.
I do not detract one word of what I said yesterday. I then said:
Whether the hon. Lady can present herself at the Bar of the House must, I imagine, be a matter for the Northern Ireland Government. I am prepared to discuss that with my right hon. Friend to discover what the position is."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1970: Vol. 804, c. 547.]
I have done so, and I can confirm, as a result of that discussion, that it is a

matter for the Northern Ireland Government whether the hon. Lady could present herself at the Bar of the House. I know that the remarks I made yesterday were brought to the attention of the Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland. On the basis of this, the Northern Ireland Government have to make their decision as to whether they are prepared to allow the hon. Lady to appear at the Bar of the House. That seems to me to be a perfectly simple proposition. That I believe to be the position as it is at present.

Mr. Michael Foot: Is the advice that the right hon. Gentleman has now given to the House as to what is the status of the Northern Ireland Government exactly the same advice as that given by the Home Office to the Government of Northern Ireland on 14th July?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that I must not be drawn any further. This is what I promised the House yesterday that I would find out. I have found it out. I having found it out, and my remarks having been drawn to the attention of Mr. Porter, I do not think that Mr. Porter and the Northern Ireland Government in coming to the decision about the hon. Lady are in any doubt. They read of our proceedings yesterday. They also clearly read of the letter which was published this morning in The Times. I think that they quite understand the position. They have to make their decision quite plainly on the basis of the facts as they know them now.

Mr. Latham: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that the facts as presented by the Leader of the House do not correspond with the facts that are being communicated from Belfast. This very morning the Ministry of Home Affairs still stood by the memorandum to which reference has been made as if there had been no exchanges at all in the House yesterday. The only comment to the representatives who went there, made by a secretary at the Ministry of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, was that it could not be held responsible for the mistakes of the British Home Office.
I believe that there has been some correspondence from your Office, Mr. Speaker, in which it was made clear that the hon. Lady could not take the oath in prison.
The point we are trying to press, and what I think is the primary and only urgent point at present, is that something has been said which purports to have been in your name. Cannot you redress that, Mr. Speaker, since your authority appears to have been misquoted, and cannot you make it clear to the Ministry that you have not ruled in the way that it has been led to believe you have ruled? Unless you do that, it seems to me extremely unlikely that the Ministry of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland will believe that there is any change in the situation since the memorandum of 14th July.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, that is exactly the point the hon. Gentleman asked me to put clearly. I have not ruled—and this is perhaps the third time I have said this today—that if the hon. Lady appeared at the Bar I would not call her to take the oath. This is clear beyond a peradventure.

Mr. Will Griffiths: The Leader of the House has reiterated that the authority in this matter is vested in the Government of Northern Ireland, but we know from what has been said in the House this evening, and the correspondence in The Times this morning, that it may be reasonable to assume that a decisive factor in the decision taken by the Government of Northern Ireland was the advice tendered to the Home Office by the Clerk. We now know that that advice was tendered in good faith, but, as you have explained, Mr. Speaker, by a convention in our proceedings was neither seen nor endorsed by you. Therefore, if it is the fact, as seems reasonable, that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster is denied a possible opportunity to come here to take the oath by the action of the Clerk of the House, surely it is your duty, in your supreme authority, to rectify that error and rule tonight in a way that will make it clear to the Government of Northern Ireland that the advice tendered by the Clerk was not the decisive advice that should have been tendered by you.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Again, I make it perfectly clear that I cannot enter into the assumption that the hon. Gentleman make as to how Stormont decides its policy. This is not a matter for Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is entitled

to his own argument, but these are not matters of order for me.

Mr. Paget: Cannot we take this just a little further? It is now clear that on 14th July information was given to the Stormont Ministry which was plainly erroneous. It is equally clear that the very forthcoming and forthright statement which the Leader of the House made yesterday, and which we all understood, was not understood in Ireland. Would the right hon. Gentleman just go a little further and say that he will communicate with the Northern Ireland Government to make it clear that they understand the situation, that the communication of 14th July was an unfortunate mistake, and that what he said yesterday meant that if the hon. Lady did come here and presented herself for the oath she would be treated according to the normal procedure of the House? If the right hon. Gentleman would just make that clear to the Northern Irish authorities, I feel that we should all be satisfied, Mr. Speaker's position would be clear and the House would have renewed confidence in a Leader in whom I think it already has great confidence.

Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that I can clear the matter up now. Naturally, after what I said yesterday I had a conversation with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who undertook to have further conversations with the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland. I know that those conversations have taken place today. I think that I can assure the House that whatever decision the Northern Ireland Government may come to today they will take it in the full knowledge of what passed in the House yesterday and, indeed, in the full knowledge of what I said and of what was published in the papers this morning. They are in no doubt of all these facts in coming to their decision. I hope that that gives the assurance that the hon and learned Gentleman asked for.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is not the difficulty entirely due to the fact that the Government know, the Clerk to the Table knows and most hon. Members know, that if the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster were to come here and take the oath, Privilege would mean that she


would not need to go back, because she would be privileged to stay here? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am asking Mr. Speaker whether this is so, and I do not seek the advice of hon. Members. There was a case some years ago when there was an identical situation.
Once in the precincts, an hon. Member cannot be ordered to go back, cannot be ordered out. If the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster were now to say that she would agree to go back, once having taken the oath, perhaps the Home Office would change its mind.

Mr. Speaker: I have already said that I am not ruling on a hypothesis. This is a hypothesis following a hypothesis.
I would rule on a question of Privilege after giving it 24 hours' consideration.
It now appears that we may move on.

BILL PRESENTED

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (QUALIFICATION OF COUNCILLORS)

Mr. Secretary Maudling, supported by Mr. William Whitelaw, Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Peter Walker, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, and Mr. Richard Sharples, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the qualification for nomination and election to, and membership of, local authorities in Great Britain: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 18.]

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 27th October.

8.22 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Before we proceed to discuss this Motion, Mr. Speaker, there is a consideration which I should like to put to the House.
The whole House will agree that we have had a somewhat unusual afternoon. I do not know whether it is, but if it were possible to change the point of interruption so that this Motion could be debated for longer I think that the House would be grateful to you. I know that this is an unusual situation, but the Government would like and I think that the Opposition would like this, and if it were possible I am sure that the House would be grateful to you.

Mr. Speaker: The unusual situation is nothing to do with the matters which we have been discussing today but to the extraordinary incident which occurred earlier in the evening. I cannot vary the Motion on the Order Paper unless I have the unanimous consent of the House. We are about to debate whether the House should adjourn until 27th October. Under Standing Orders, the rule is not suspended for this debate and I shall have to end it automatically at 10 o'clock. I suggest, if I have the concurrence of the House, that I shall close it not at 10 o'clock but at 11 o'clock. Is there any opposition to that suggestion? [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] In that case the debate will end at 11 o'clock.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: May I remind hon. Members that we are not debating issues but whether we should rise until 27th October?

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Peter Shore: I am conscious that time is scarce. The events which we all experienced earlier underline this.
If it were not a matter of considerable importance which I feel I ought to raise


and argue and which should be considered before the House adjourns, I should not seek to take the time of the House this evening. A statement was made in reply to a Written Question at 4 o'clock this afternoon. It concerns the future of the Royal Mint, which is a national establishment of which we are proud in my constituency of Stepney. It is an establishment with which many other hon. Members, particularly those from the London area, are associated.
The announcement this afternoon was to the effect that the Government have decided that the transfer of the Royal Mint from Tower Hill to Wales should proceed. To make this statement the subject of a Written Answer was deplorable. This is a subject which, given the controversy that has surrounded the decision to move the Mint, taken some years ago, should have been the subject of an oral statement. When it is considered that the time of the House earlier today was taken up by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications on what was a non-statement it is extraordinary that the opportunity was not taken to make a statement on this important subject.
It is important and necessary to debate this and if need be for the House to sit beyond the date on which we are to adjourn because this decision will have considerable repercussions on the 1,300 men employed by the Royal Mint and their families living in London. These men will be bewildered and dismayed by the announcement, and once they have got over that they will be angry. They are likely to feel cynical about the decision of the Government. It is not simply the case that the Government are confirming a decision taken by their predecessors. It is true that in 1967 the Labour Government made the decision in the light of the then facts that the Mint had to be rebuilt and should be located in South Wales. That decision was not questioned except by one or two of my hon. Friends.
I would have expected that the decision would have been accepted, however reluctantly, because it is natural that people should be reluctant when faced with the prospect of moving from London. It was natural that they should have resisted it, but I think that they would have accepted it, as many have, but for the fact that their confidence in that decision

was undermined and eroded during the last year by a series of statements and questions, and particularly by a debate in this House four months ago. Then it was argued that the situation had so changed since the 1967 decision that the case for moving the Mint had disappeared. The Opposition spokesman then, who is now the Financial Secretary, said:
With so much at stake, therefore, with conditions now so starkly changed from the peak period in 1966–67, the case for an inquiry has become overwhelming."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1970; Vol. 798, c. 1663.]
It is inevitable that the men working at the Mint will be asking themselves as they learn of this decision: "What has happened in the past four months to cause those who were then in opposition to change their minds and to decide that no inquiry was needed?"
I do not say that four months ago the then Opposition Front Bench argued without reason or for a total reversal of the decision, but it did urge that there should be a full inquiry, which would have resulted in a delay of perhaps two or three months. It will be very difficult to convince the men at the Mint that what has taken place since amounts to the inquiry which was urged four months ago. According to the Press statement which accompanied the Written Answer which the Financial Secretary gave today, the Government have conducted a review in the four weeks since they took office. A review is not the same as an inquiry. A review was carried out by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Treasury when I urged him to look again at the matter to make sure that the decision made a few months ago was right. The present Government have simply looked again at the papers and have come to a decision and have totally ditched the idea of an inquiry which they put before the men at the Mint and all those concerned four months ago.
Many people will want to know why the Government have changed their mind. We need time to debate the matter, and that time will be denied us if we continue with the present plan to adjourn tomorrow. We are about to adjourn for three months or more during which time the consequential results of the Government's decision will have to be faced and dealt with because the run-down of men now employed at the Mint will take place


during the second half of this year and inevitably it will involve some redundancies and the need to decide the compensation to which they shall be entitled.
We should have time to debate this matter thoroughly, not only because it is a matter of great importance in my constituency. There is even more to it than that. The reputations of the Government and of the Financial Secretary are involved. The Financial Secretary took it upon himself to make a special study of the Mint in his days of opposition when he was free to raise the matter and to feed the natural anxieties of the men and to argue strongly that it should be the subject of a serious inquiry. Now he is in a rather strange position and his chickens have come home to roost. It is in his interests as well as the interests of the Government that he should have the opportunity which only a debate can provide to give the reasons which caused him, in so short a time, to change his judgment and his conclusions and to discard his proposal for an independent inquiry and instead to content himself with a quick look at the papers. That is the hon. Gentleman's responsibility.
Often in the pursuit of our policies we find ourselves in difficult positions. The House recognises that a Minister with duties and convictions which do not necessarily coincide with the short-term interests of his constituents often finds himself in a very tough situation. I do not complain about that. I did not ask the Government for an independent inquiry because I had come to the honest conclusion that the decision to move the Mint was right.
The people who came to a different conclusion are now sitting on the benches opposite. They led the demand for an inquiry which undermined the confidence of the men in the Mint in the decision which was taken. Having got to power, within a matter of weeks they now abandon the positions which they previously adopted. It is bad for Parliament and bad for the reputation of us all if men can come to the conclusion that their hopes, their fears and their livelihood are nothing more than a football of party politics.
I therefore very much hope that an opportunity will rapidly be taken to enable

us to discuss their affair in full and to hear the full explanation of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is present on the Government Front Bench tonight.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I wish to speak of the effect that the dock strike is having on Northern Ireland. The situation is serious and it is growing more grave each day. As we know, Ulster is the only substantial part of the United Kingdom where the disruption of its shipping is the equivalent to the stoppage of road, rail and sea traffic betwen various parts of Britain—for instance, between Scotland and England.
This afternoon, when the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) questioned my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity about his statement on the docks strike, he pointed out the difficulties that the Scottish Islands were facing and the need to ensure the movement of fish and eggs between the islands and the mainland. My right hon. Friend replied that he would bear that situation in mind. That is not an answer which I would find satisfactory concerning the position in which Northern Ireland finds itself, and I cannot be complacent about Ulster's economic situation. Without reassurance from my right hon. Friend, I cannot feel that this House can adjourn.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Then vote with us tonight.

Mr. Kilfedder: Further grave and, perhaps, irreparable damage will be done to Northern Ireland's economy unless the agricultural products of the province can be shipped without further delay to the rest of the United Kingdom.
On 20th July, a leading article appeared in the Belfast Telegraph which stated—it is worth reading to the House:
Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, but because of the Irish Sea, its food producers have to fight much harder to retain their foothold in Britain. They have held on, and have built on past successes, because they have been that much more efficient than their cross-channel rivals, but a prolonged blockade of the ports could lose them trade, which might never be recovered.


If I might read just one other sentence from that leading article, it states:
Their quarrel"—
that is, the dockers' quarrel—
is with the port employers, and although they must make an effort to see that the strike is effective, they should realise that trade with Britain in agricultural produce is in a special category.
Indeed, I could emphasise the cost of this dock strike to Northern Ireland by giving to the House figures for the four main agricultural exports to Britain each week: bacon amounting to £380,000; eggs amounting to £360,000; live cattle to the value of £290,000; and meat to the value of £220,000. The total value each week amounts to close on £2 million. All that, at this moment, is at stake.
I regret that we have high unemployment in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Government, with the help of this Government here, are facing that, but it looks as though our present high unemployment will be increased heavily and that that will be seen when the figures are revealed for this month. This is the tragedy of this dock strike, because it is going to throw other people out of work. Immediately at risk are a few thousand people employed in food plants—350 workers in meat plants; 1,750 workers in bacon factories; 400 in the broiler processing plants; 1,350 people working in the egg packing plants. That is not the full story, because if this dock strike goes on for a week or for longer still over 11,000 people employed in the agricultural processing industry in Northern Ireland will find their jobs in jeopardy, and these are people employed in milk processing plants, the potato processing and canning industry, and in various industries ancillary to agriculture.
While there is a danger of exposing Northern Ireland to further economic loss I cannot, as I say, view the Adjournment of the House with complacency. This Government have a duty, a duty which they cannot ignore, to have special, urgent talks with Mr. Jack Jones to emphasise to the union the danger that the strike poses for Northern Ireland.
Whatever the merits of the strike I am sure it is not the intention of the dockers to stop the transport of goods between

one part of the United Kingdom and another. Their quarrel is with the dock employers and not with the ordinary people of Northern Ireland who have suffered so much and are now trying to build for the future. I know many of the Belfast dockers—very good and kindly people who voted for me when I had the honour of representing Belfast, West, and there are some in my new constituency of Down, North, and I always pay a tribute to their sincerity. They are sensible men and anxious to aid Ulster, not to hinder its progress. Here in this House I appeal to them to get approval from their union for the loading of agricultural products for shipment to Britain.
I must, however, seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend here and now that, if the trade union cannot consent to this reasonable plea—because of a question of solidarity—if the strike is still on by Monday, the Government will employ some means to ensure that Ulster's agricultural products are shipped to Britain, and shipped without further delay. I do not think that that is an unreasonable request to make, because the dockers have agreed, and kindly agreed, to unload perishable products in ships docked in harbours here in Britain, but it is essential as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) pointed out, that there should be movement of such goods—as, in his case, eggs and fish between the Scottish islands and Scotland's mainland. It is vital to the economic survival of Ulster that the agricultural products of that province are shipped across to this part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman now go on to say that if the trade union were to do that he would equally bring pressure on his right hon. Friend to ensure that all the profits of all the people concerned in the loading and unloading of the goods, would be sent to appropriate charities?

Mr. Kilfedder: This is not something that I can answer. The dockers in Belfast are concerned about the situation and, if the union here were to tell them that they could go ahead, they would respond to that request and start loading the ships in Belfast.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) have both deployed powerful reasons why the House should not adjourn tomorrow for three months. I wish to carry the argument a little wider. The House of Commons faces a unique situation in that we are in a state of emergency and an incoming Administration has just taken over the reins of responsibility. Never before in the political history of this country, as far as I have been able to ascertain, has this situation arisen, and we must consider the adjournment of the House in that context.
I believe that the idea of the House adjourning for three months during the summer is archaic and completely out of date. It is a hang-over from a past age when the way in which our political problems were discussed was rather academic, and when it was possible for the affairs of the country to go on without the need for the State to intervene, because the State believed in a philosophy of nonintervention. The situation in 1970 is quite dissimilar. Whether we have a Labour or a Conservative Administration, the State is, to an extent, interventionist, and to adjourn the House of Commons for three months while important decisions are being taken by the Executive is wrong, because it means that the Executive is able to carry out its actions without being subject to the control and pressures of this House.
We shall adjourn while there are several important subjects still unresolved. There has been raised today the question of the state of emergency and the serious dock strike. I have looked up the precedents, and it is not correct that never before has the House adjourned when a state of emergency exists. In 1921 the Whitsun Recess took place during a coal strike. In a similar situation in 1966 a Whitsun Recess occurred and the Emeregncy Regulations had to be discussed after the House resumed after that recess. In the railway strike of 1955 a state of emergency was declared when the House was actually prorogued, and the House debated the Emergency Regulations just after the new House met on 13th June, 1955. In the General Strike of 1926 a Summer Adjournment

took place just after the state of emergency was declared. After some days of adjournment the House was recalled on 27th September so that the Emergency Regulations could be discussed on 28th September. The House was again recalled on 25th October and the Emergency Regulations were again discussed on 26th October.
If the precedent of 1926 is followed in 1970, the Leader of the House will call us back in August for one day to debate the Emergency Regulations. It is important not only that the House of Commons should have an opportunity to discuss the Emergency Regulations and their continuance but that we should be able to cross-examine the various Ministers concerned about their handling of the dispute and the measures they are taking to keep down prices in the difficult situation that will face the country if the dispute continues. This will not be possible if we are recalled simply for one day to debate the Emergency Regulations themselves. I suggest that it would be wrong for the House to adjourn for this long period without hon. Members being able to come back and cross-examine Ministers about the exercise of their responsibilities.
Several other examples have been given today on subjects on which Ministers have failed to give answers. The question of the postal tariffs was raised this afternoon, and the Leader of the House made it clear that he was not prepared to give an undertaking that no decision would be taken by the Government during the recess and that the House of Commons would have an opportunity of debating this matter before a decision was arrived at. I regard that announcement by the Leader of the House as wholly reprehensible. It is intolerable that the Government should make a decision about increasing postal tariffs without the House of Commons having an opportunity to debate the issues involved, particularly as the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications this afternoon made a number of inaccurate statements which the House of Commons should be able to debate before the decision is arrived at.
There is also the situation that arises as a result of the surcharge on Rhodesian mail. The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 20th July asked in a


Written Question whether the surcharge would continue, and the Minister replied that he still had the matter under consideration. The Minister may perhaps make a decision during the recess and announce it without the House having an opportunity to cross-examine him and debate the matter.
There is also the question of the B.B.C. local radio plans, which were announced by the previous Administration, in which the B.B.C. currently intend to create another 12 local radio stations. The people in the towns concerned are expecting to hear about these plans. Will the Minister make a statement during the recess which is perhaps adverse to the B.B.C. and in favour of commercial radio without the House of Commons having an opportunity to debate it? There is also the question of the Annan Committee, which was dealt with in a Written Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), a Question which the Minister has failed to answer. Is the Annan Committee to be allowed to get on with the job of discussing the future of broadcasting in Britain, or is it to be wound up during the recess, with a decision by the Minister, without an objective committee of inquiry being allowed to do its job?
There is also the situation about the I.R.C. and the future of certain very important industrial questions. Rolls-Royce, for example, is wondering what the new Government will do to assist it in the serious economic and industrial situation in which it finds itself. There is also the question of the machine tool industry and other industries which have been affected as a result of the change in the economic climate. It looks as if the Government may decide during the recess to remove one of the props which the last Administration gave to industry to enable it to readjust to the changing competitive circumstances in the world. If that happens, it will have serious economic repercussions on our constituents who will be made redundant.
In the aero-space industry decisions are still awaited about whether the Government intend to support the development of the BAC 3–11. A great deal hangs on them. In a Written Reply yesterday, to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)

on whether this development was to be allowed to continue—col. 122—the Minister failed to give a clear answer.
All these are vital matters about which the House of Commons is concerned. I do not complain that Ministers are taking time in reaching decisions about them. Obviously a few weeks is not enough for some of the complex questions involved. However, when Ministers are ready to make statements, we should have an opportunity of putting forward our points of view. We shall not be able to make those points of view known if we adjourn tomorrow for three months.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: I want to follow the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), who stressed the great importance of agriculture to the economy of Northern Ireland and the serious consequences for agriculture should the dock strike continue for very much longer. The House will recall the statistics which my hon. Friend quoted to support his argument.
While my hon. Friend's constituency has an agricultural content mine does not, and therefore I do not propose to enter the detailed argument which he advanced. Suffice it to say that the unemployment figures for Northern Ireland published today tragically underscore the fact that in recent months, despite the efforts of this House and the Parliament of Northern Ireland, the economy of Northern Ireland is going through an extremely serious time. The question is what this House can do in the short term to help.
I understand that there is one helpful way in which my right hon. and hon. Friends can assist and that it can be set in train within the next day or two. For that reason, I hope that a decision will be reached and that a statement will be made before the House rises.
This afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) went to the Home Office. He was hoping to be here to make this point himself. In his absence, he has asked me to do it for him. He went to the Home Office to explain in detail the consequences of the dock strike for agriculture in Northern Ireland. Apparently, the Minister of Agriculture


can grant an open general licence for the export of foodstuffs and live animals to the Irish Republic, and that this can be done very easily, possibly even tonight when this debate is concluded. Its effect would be considerably to assist us at this time.
I hope that the necessary statement can be made, if not tonight then as soon as humanly possible, and certainly before the House rises for the summer.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Dell: I oppose the Motion for the Recess on the ground that no statement has been made either to the House or to me arising out of the inquiry that was promised in the Adjournment debate which took place on Tuesday, 14th July, on the Cammell Laird pledges which, it was stated, were made with the knowledge and approval of the then Shadow Cabinet.
I will briefly recapitulate what those pledges were. Cammell Laird is the largest employer in my constituency. The Labour Government decided that no further orders for hunter-killer submarines would go to Cammell Laird and that the refitting of nuclear submarines would be confined to the Royal doskyards. Both decisions were bitterly resented by the management and employees at Cammell Laird, and they were a sensitive issue throughout the Merseyside during the General Election. Cammell Laird is the largest employer not merely in my constituency, but in many Merseyside constituencies around it.
Shortly before the General Election—indeed, I now find that it was on 15th June, 1970, three days before the election—the Conservative candidate wrote a letter to the secretary of the shop stewards' committee at Cammell Laird. This confirms my statement that the pledges, to which I will refer in a moment, were made, according to the Conservative candidate, with the approval of the Shadow Cabinet. I will refer to one paragraph from the letter sent by the Conservative candidate to Mr. P. Cusack, secretary of the shop stewards' committee. It reads:
We have a long-standing arrangement for a meeting at Cammell Laird's gate for 12.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 16th June, which is quite impossible to postpone. At this meeting I propose to announce far-reaching com

mitments on behalf of the Conservative Shadow Cabinet, which I have personally confirmed with the individual Shadow Ministers concerned.
I will mention two of the 11 pledges. These are the two crucial pledges which related to the two sensitive issues which I have just mentioned. The first of the pledges was No. 7, which said:
The Conservative Party will restore the building programme of the hunter-killer submarines to their original level; i.e., reverse the cuts made by the Socialists. This means that this additional work must come to Cammell Laird as there is no other shipyard in Britain equipped to do it, with the exception of Vickers who already have the existing business.
I drew that pledge to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence during the Adjournment debate on 14th July, and he replied:
… even if we were to restore the rate of building hunter/killer submarines to that which obtained before the previous Government cut it in 1968, it would not bring any extra work to Cammell Laird.
The hon. Gentleman went on to make clear that such work would go to Vickers.
The second crucial pledge, which was part of item 10, reads:
The Conservative Party is also determined to retain facilities at Cammell Laird for the refitting of nuclear submarines and will keep open the option to have some of this work carried out at the yard as and when necessary.
On that point the hon. Gentleman, whom I am glad to set in his place, said:
… I am informed that Cammell Laird is not equipped to refit nuclear submarines and that to do so would involve the building of an extra dock. Even if that were done, it was the firm policy of the previous Administration, which is being maintained by the present Administration, that refitting of nuclear submarines shall proceed in the Royal Dockyards and not in commercial firms."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1489–90.]
Indeed on 10th July I
asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has to use Cammell Lairds, Birkenhead, for the refitting of nuclear submarines.
I received this reply:
We have no plans for refitting nuclear submarines outside the Royal Dockyards.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 105.]
In short, both of those crucial pledges have already been dishonoured.
That this was believed on Merseyside there is no question, and I will quote an independent authority—independent at


any rate from me—to explain this. The Birkenhead News wrote on 17th June, 1970, the day before the election:
… the Tories' promise to restore the submarine building programme at Cammell Laird and end redundancies is a move which could have a marked effect on local voting.
I said in the Adjournment debate of 14th July that it was scandalous that these pledges were made and that, having been stated to have been made on behalf of the Shadow Cabinet, they had already been dishonoured. I say it is a scandal, and there is no question but that, it being a scandal, the only point with which we must now be concerned is how they came to be made in the first place.
The Conservative candidate in Birkenhead said they had been made with the knowledge and approval of the Shadow Cabinet. In the Adjournment debate of 14th July I suggested that one of the Shadow Ministers whom the Conservative candidate might have contacted on this question was the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who was then Shadow Minister of Defence and who is now Minister of Technology.
I was promised that there would be an inquiry, and it was presumed that that would lead to a statement being made in the House. As yet we have not had the result of the inquiry, though there can be no difficulty in establishing the facts. They would require a consultation between the Conservative Party in Birkenhead, the Conservative candidate and such Shadow Ministers as he might have consulted.
Instead of a report being made to the House, we have had—this is my reason for arguing that we should not adjourn until the situation has been explained—a series of statements in the Merseyside Press concerning persons involved in the matter. For example, the Liverpool Echo of 16th July, two days after the Adjournment debate, wrote:
The Liverpool Echo late last night gave Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, Minister of Technology, details of election pledges he is alleged to have endorsed on future naval work for Cammell Lairds. The pledges were issued to Cammell Laird workers by Mr. Robert Kris, Conservative candidate for Birkenhead, just two days before the election. They included a definite statement that Lairds would get work on hunter killer submarines, and that the Birkenhead yard should also be getting nuclear submarine refits … But Mr. Rippon told

the Echo political correspondent last night that at no time had he endorsed any specific pledges of naval work for Cammell Lairds. He said he had not yet seen the document containing the promises, but when given details by the Echo, said that he would wait for an official party report before making further comment.
Perhaps it was unfortunate that he did not take his own advice and wait for the official working party report before making further comment. The right hon. Gentleman has indeed made a further comment, and it increases my concern about this matter. The newspaper went on:
Mr. Rippon did say, however, that before and during the election campaign he had said that more naval work would be available but at no time had he mentioned any shipyard in particular. 'There were no commitments of specific work for Cammell Lairds'.
There is then this comment, presumably by the journalist:
It is understood that Mr. Rippon takes the view that he is not responsible for detailed promises made by any Conservative candidate when those promises are based on false inference drawn from speeches he has made of a general nature on naval work.
The attitude represented by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quoted as saying in that article is what I would expect a responsible Opposition spokesman to take but unfortunately we find that there are contradictory statements. There is, for example—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I appreciate the trend of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I think he will have noticed that a great many hon. Members hope to take part in this debate. While I think it proper to look towards the future with which we are concerned, I think it would be unwise to place undue emphasis on the past.

Mr. Dell: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker for your guidance. I wish to conclude by informing the House of two things said by Conservatives in Birkenhead. This is the substance of my concern about these contradictions, which should be resolved before the House rises for the recess.
The Conservative agent in Birkenhead, Mr. John Cole, is reported in the Birkenhead News of 17th July, 1970, as maintaining that he had been present when Mr. Kris received the go-ahead from


Shadow Cabinet members. The quotation was:
'After telephone discussions with Sir Keith Joseph and Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, Mr. Kris and I drew up the leaflet', he said. 'We then phoned back, and after Mr. Kris had read over the details he was given the go-ahead.'
This again was confirmed by the Conservative candidate himself in which he said, according to the Liverpool Daily Post of 18th July, 1970:
'Mr. Rippon agreed with me on the telephone over the leaflet and he asked only for one or two minor changes in emphasis or wording before it was published.' Mr. Kris added that the points he had gone through concerned Tory defence policy. He said: 'Do you really think I would have published it otherwise?'".
Here we have a direct conflict of evidence, or what appears to be a direct conflict of evidence, on the circumstances in which this circular was produced. It seems of considerable importance, certainly to my constituents and I should have thought to the Government, that this matter should be resolved and that in this House we should be given a clear statement of how these pledges, which have already been dishonoured, were made. That should have been a simple matter, but we have had nothing even though we are four weeks away from the General Election and nine days from the Adjournment debate which I raised.
We have had a further statement from the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham which attacked me for raising the matter in this House and attacked me for not supplying him or his hon. and right hon. Friends with copies of the circular, as though I should be the channel by which Conservative pledges issued in Conservative leaflets during the General Election find their way to the Conservative Government, which I should have thought would feel bound by those pledges. I put it to the Leader of the House that we require clarification on this point before the House rises.
I also put it to him that in view of the fact that it now appears that something I was not able to substantiate on the occasion of the Adjournment debate—that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham is involved—whether innocently or otherwise I make no judgment on that—he should consider whether it is appropriate that this inquiry

should be carried out under the auspices of that right hon. and learned Gentleman or by some more independent person. Certainly this matter should be cleared up before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recollect, as will older Members, that it is the custom for the Chair to call Privy Councillors in preference to ordinary back benchers. We have always accepted this, albeit that some back benchers like myself accept it reluctantly.
Is it not also the custom that Privy Councillors who are called should observe the custom of the House and wait to hear at least two succeeding speakers? Three Privy Councillors have spoken, the first two of whom departed immediately they had spoken. I hope that this point of mine can go on the record and that Privy Councillors will know that it is their duty to observe the normal courtesies and customs of the House and wait for at least two following speakers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will realise that that matter of opinion is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Lewis: It is on the record, though.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: I oppose the Motion that we should adjourn until 27th October. It is a constitutional absurdity in a parliamentary democracy when the country is in a state of emergency and faced by a large number of crises that we should go into a recess due to last for three months.
Traditionally in the debate on the Motion about the date when the House should resume, hon. Members who speak against the length of the recess are rather like Mr. Speaker when he is dragged reluctantly to the Chair. If their protests were heeded, no one would be more disappointed than hon. Members whose holidays were curtailed. It was right that that should have been so in the past, because this was a ritual occasion when hon. Gentlemen could raise a ragbag of many matters of the kind we have already heard this evening, in


which they could present cases of constituency interest or matters which they wanted to bring to the attention of the House instead of waiting until the following day.
Tonight the matter I want to raise is the question whether the principle of parliamentary democracy is not being devalued by packing off the House of Commons for three months hols, rather like a bunch of schoolboys.
I have a great regard for the Leader of the House. Already he has given indications that he will be one of the outstanding Leaders of the House, certainly within my parliamentary experience, which now goes back for 25 years. I had a particularly high regard for the right hon. Gentleman when in winding up the debate on the Gracious Speech he made it quite clear that he regarded the Chamber as being the forum where hon. Members, particularly back benchers, could have a voice. I particularly approved of the right hon. Gentleman's attitude when he said that became the Chamber is the focal point of the House of Commons our business should not be transacted huggermugger, if I may use that Elizabethan word, in Committee rooms dispersed in various parts of the Palace of Westminster.
The right hon. Gentleman, having made that speech at the conclusion of the debate on the Gracious Speech, and having reinforced the point in a most remarkable broadcast in "The World this Weekend"—having uttered those splendid and high-flown sentences—when the moment comes for him to uphold the rights of ordinary Members of Parliament all that he can do is to send the House off on three months holiday.

Mr. Orme: Not holiday.

Mr. Edelman: I was about to say that every hon. Member has his constituency duties. Every hon. Member will engage in those constituency matters which are his concern. We are elected as Members of Parliament to the House of Commons. Our constitutional place is to act as critics and challengers of the Executive.
We are in a time of crisis. There is a dock strike which threatens the nation's whole life. Profiteering is taking place which affects every housewife. It is a

time of danger in the Middle East. Under the Tory Government unemployment is rising. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is a time of difficulty and danger in Northern Ireland. At a time of such a constellation of crises I believe that it is wrong for the House to go into recess for three months.
Why is the recess to last three months? My right hon. Friend the former Minister of Posts and Telecommunications gave an indication. It is a hang-over from Victorian times when, at the end of the summer, statesmen would go to their country estates or they would take their barouches, go off to Victoria station, there entrain to take the packet boat to France, and then another carriage to Aix-les-Bains or wherever it might have been. That was the practice in Victorian times—it was the habit of Gladstone and his successors—and our being packed off for a three months' vacation now is simply a relic of a Victorian tradition which has no relevance to present-day conditions.
For the most part, my constituents have already had their holidays. With the staggered holiday system and July holidays, they have already been away. On the Continent, by the middle of August the holiday season for working people will be over, and after 15th August the work of the ordinary man and woman is in full swing.
For some reason, we seem dedicated to our prolonged vacation of three months in which the affairs of Parliament will stand still and in which there will be no opportunity to raise the many and various matters which are the concern of the House. One of the extraordinary features of recent hours in our affairs has been the way in which somehow or other, business has begun to gallop along as though everyone was rushing to conclude all the important matters before the House immediately so as to start the recess tomorrow.
That is no way to transact the business of a great nation. It is absolutely improvident that at a time when we face the crises I have mentioned, when there is a state of emergency, when there is the likelihood—or, perhaps, I should say, at least the danger—that we shall be recalled for a day to renew the Emergency Regulations, being asked to dispose


of these vital matters in a one-day sitting, as happened two years ago when we were recalled at the time of the invasion of Czechoslovakia for just one day on that vital issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "Two days."] Then let it be two days. If anyone thinks that two days give enough time to discuss a vital issue affecting the security of the nation, I can only say that I regard it as grossly inadequate, as events proved it to be in that case.
I am not one to urge—indeed, I should be the last to urge—that Members of Parliament should be deprived of a reasonable vacation and a reasonable holiday for themselves and their families. I realise that hon. Members opposite, in particular, had to work exceptionally hard in order to be returned to serve in the House, and I can well believe that after two or three weeks of supinely sitting on the benches opposite they now feel the need for recreation and rest. But that is not good enough in a parliamentary democracy.
I do not accuse the Leader of the House of doing it, but one has only to look to the other side of the Channel to see how parliamentary democracy can be devalued. When President de Gaulle wanted to devalue parliamentary democracy he did not throw the Deputies in goal. All he did was send them off on a long holiday. In fact, France had a record for long holidays for parliamentarians.
I remind the Leader of the House of what he said at the conclusion of his speech on the Address:
… on one thing I have very strong views. The Floor of the House must be in the centre of Parliament … penetrating Parliamentary criticism of the Executive is vital for the health of both Government and Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 976.]
This is the place where we must make speeches. It is not enough to make a speech in the constituency which will get half a column in the local paper. It is no good publishing statements to the Press Association from Clacton-on-Sea or even from Beaulieu-sur-Mer. I do not believe that they carry the necessary weight which they can and should carry when we speak in the House.
I hope that at the end of the debate, without forcing us into the Lobby, the

Leader of the House will accept that three months is an excessive vacation for a parliamentary democracy and will announce his decision to have a late Summer Session which will give Members the opportunity to carry out their function, which is to be critics of the Executive.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: My opposition to the Adjournment, and, I am sure, that of some of my hon. Friends, is not a sham opposition at all. Too often do we hear speeches during such a debate in which colleagues rightly raise matters appertaining to their constituencies, but on this occasion I shall not make that sort of speech because I really believe that it is an absolute disgrace that at this moment in our history, in the midst of an emergency, when we have given the Government emergency powers, we should be going away from the House and leaving the Government with the widest powers possible without our being able to put them under the microscope if they decide to use them.
It is true that up until now they have not used them, and I hope that they will not. But as soon as we are out of the House certain events could take place. It is quite possible that the powers would be fully used and we should not be here to put questions or raise matters which are vital to the citizens of this country. We have given the Government the right to arrest without warrant and many other powers which are obviously not normal when we go into recess.
A parliamentary recess does not mean a three months' holiday for hon. Members. The idea that it does is a myth that must be dispelled. If they are doing their job properly, hon. Members get back to their constituencies in a recess and discover the problems there, so that when they return here they speak with authority on the matters concerning their constituents. I meet more shop stewards' committees and workers in the factories and in their homes during a recess than at any other time—and I usually meet them most weekends anyway. It is a myth that we go away for three months sunning ourselves in the South of France. I only ever go away for a fortnight, and that is on a package tour because I cannot afford anything else. I do not own a yacht. I have not got a Rolls-Royce


motor car, and I do not think I ever shall. We work in a recess, although outside the House, but the proposed recess is too long. I have been here for six years, and it is the longest Summer Recess that has ever been suggested during that time.
I am not surprised that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want to get us out of the House. There are many issues which will require immediate answers and demand the scrutiny of Parliament. For the Government, it is better for members of Parliament to be away. This applies not only to the present Administration, but to all Governments, for every Government would like Parliament to have a permanent recess, because it would be so much easier to deal with issues if hon. Members were not here to ask questions and raise issues of importance.
I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture is present. We have given him power to control food prices. So far there has been no sign of control of prices, and I do not think that there will be. I should like to be here next week, and the week after, if we are still in this situation to ask the right hon. Gentleman why food prices are not being controlled and when he will use his powers.
So far the Government have shown great reluctance to use troops in the docks. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), who in the debate the other night said that the essence of the Regulations and the powers was not the controlling of food prices but the rest of it. If the powers are used, we shall be in the biggest industrial crisis the country has known since 1926. It is a scandal that we should be going away from the House at this moment.
I ask the House not to agree to the Motion, not merely to make speeches about the problems, to ask for assurances but not get them and then say that it was not too bad and not vote against the Motion. On this occasion I intend to vote against it, because I think that it is wrong. I believe that we should not go into recess now, and I hope that all those hon. Members who believe as my hon. Friends and I do will follow us into the Lobby against the Adjournment of the House at this time.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: As is customary on the occasion of the Adjournment debate, we have had contributions from hon. Members which have shown that what they want is some reply to be able to take back to their constituencies. If they receive some such reply from the Treasury Bench, for them the debate will have served its purpose. That is not my purpose. This is a rather special occasion and the normal badinage of Adjournment debates does not apply and is a waste of time.
The situation is farr too serious. It concerns the emergency powers granted to the Government. I shall vote against the Adjournment Motion. I regard the debate not as a charade but as a serious business of Parliament, because we have not yet had an outline of the Government's attitude and future policy towards this serious dock strike. We have no knowledge, let alone assurance, of how the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity and the rest of the Government will conduct themselves next week and, if the strike is still on, the week after.
I recall the replies of the right hon. Gentleman when we have tried—and it was done from the Front Bench by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and from the back benches by many of my hon. Friends—to get an assessment of the attitude which the Government will adopt after the report of the Court of Inquiry.
Some of us have tried to get the Government to give the House an assurance that after the Court of Inquiry has reported the Government will urge, even insist, that the employers should agree to negotiate although the strike may still be continuing. At no time have we had an assurance on this, however much we have tried. Now we are asked to adjourn the House even a week earlier than is often the case. Frequently in recent years the House has gone to 31st July or 5th August. The argument used on those occasions has been that the business of the House had not been concluded.
Is there any more serious business to be concluded than to bring peace to our docks and an agreement that will satisfy those involved? There cannot be. I have sat in this House under Governments of various persuasions and on the


statement of such Governments on that formula alone, the House should not adjourn, so that Members who represent port workers, areas most directly concerned, should be able to question the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity day by day over his conduct.
This is the important point, that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will not be able to question the Government next week. We will not be able to question the Government over how they use these various emergency powers. I regard it as reasonable that the Government should not say today how, under all conceivable circumstances, they may act with regard to these powers. I regard it as an advantage, and I welcome the fact that at a time when there are useful discussions going on between the Government and the Leader of the Transport Workers the situation should be left fluid and open. At the same time we know that there has been some idea as far back as last weekend about starting to move early, and it was the joint representations made on the one hand by trade unions concerned and the employers on the other that stayed the Government's hand. This is a situation which might recur, when the Government might make a decision as sensitive as the one I have quoted and when no hon. Member will be in a position to question the right hon. Gentleman as to whether the decision is wise and just.
My third point relates to time. The argument has been used that the Government had to apply reasonably early for these powers because there was no parliamentary time left. That is a short-sighted argument. I do not presume to teach the right hon. Gentleman any lessons about this but he knows that timing is absolutely decisive in an industrial dispute of this seriousness. Yet there would be no opportunity to influence him, question him, not necessarily to criticise him. I do not always have criticism in mind. He is, however, subject to the influence of the House of Commons like any other Minister. It is absolutely inexplicable why the right hon. Gentleman did not advise the Cabinet to say that the House should not adjourn on 24th July. There is nothing sacred about that date. It would have been to the Government's

own advantage to have the benefit of the advice of the House of Commons in such a serious situation.
It is suggested that if things go wrong the House will have to be recalled. That is no remedy, because the decisive period is between now and when the powers would have to be renewed. We do not want to get to that stage. The time when the House can influence the Government is between now and that date.
These are profoundly serious reasons why the House should not adjourn tomorrow, and I shall join my hon. Friends in voting against the Motion.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: It may surprise some hon. Members opposite that there are hon. Members on this side of the House who are able to speak on behalf of the dock workers and industrial workers in their constituencies.

Mr. Orme: Does the hon. Gentleman want the House to adjourn or not?

Mr. Adley: I have sat here courteously and I shall be grateful if I can be allowed to make one or two points.
The coincidence of a dock strike and a General Election seems to be laid at the door of the Government. Hon. Members opposite seem to be saying that the House should not adjourn because there is a dock strike and we now have a Conservative Government. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is well able to speak on behalf of the dock workers in his constituency, and the Leader of the Opposition is well able to say why he chose to have a General Election in June. The combination of these two factors is perhaps more significant than the suggestion of hon. Members opposite that we have at the same time a dock strike and a Conservative Government and, therefore, the House should not adjourn.

Mr. John Mendelson: Nobody has said that.

Mr. Adley: That would seem to be the tenor of the remarks of hon. Members opposite.
It seems to be suggested that the Government have introduced the emergency powers because of an evil wish to run some nasty Tory dictatorship.

Mr. Heffer: Even I did not say that.

Mr. Adley: The Government have had to introduce emergency powers because we have a dock strike, and I ask hon. Members opposite to use their best endeavours to bring it to an end. I suggest to them that when the House goes into recess there is some very valuable work which they can do in this matter.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I speak against the Motion for a combination of reasons. I do not accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), that this is not the occasion on which to raise constituency matters, and I do not apologise for proposing to raise them.

Mr. John Mendelson: I said nothing of the kind. I said not that this is not the time to raise constituency matters, but that there was an additional reason which was overriding and of national significance.

Mr. McNamara: If that was what my hon. Friend said, I withdraw my remarks. It is not what I thought he said.

Mr. Mendelson: Read it tomorrow.

Mr. McNamara: We will both read it tomorrow.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): The hon. Member will be here.

Mr. McNamara: I can understand why the Minister of Agriculture will not be here. He will be trying to persuade the housewives to buy peaches.
I wish to refer to the question of Radio Humberside, which I first raised with the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications earlier this Session when he first had questions. I had hoped to have an answer to my point before the House adjourned. I do not say that the Minister gave an undertaking to give me an answer. He said that the whole question was being reviewed.
The reason why I hoped to have an answer was that this B.B.C. station is so far advanced that we have nearly all the equipment, all the alterations have been made to the buildings, a station

manager has been appointed and staff advertisements have gone out. The station is very well advanced and was to have gone on the air towards the end of this year. One would like to have an early decision about the future of this B.B.C. local radio station. That is my reason for raising a constituency point, and also a Humberside point, in this debate.
I had thought that I would belabour the patience of the House for about half an hour on the problem of the Derry boys' marches, and I am happy that I do not have to do so. Therefore, as one who is not always happy about the relations between the present Government and the Northern Ireland Government and the Government's attitude to the Northern Ireland situation, I congratulate the Home Secretary and the security committee in Northern Ireland on their courageous and wise decision, to cancel the marches, although it involves considerable political problems for the present Northern Ireland Government. Some of us should recognise that. Therefore, I take this opportunity of doing so.
Having said that, however, having congratulated the Home Secretary on being able to use his influence and having congratulated the Northern Ireland Government on their good sense in cancelling the marches, I must make another important point. We have here what looks like a package deal: cancellation of the marches and the R.U.C. back in the Falls Road and the Bogside.
Whatever happens, now that that decision has been made it must be exercised with kid gloves. The atmosphere, for example, on the Falls Road after the troops had been in was one of tremendous iciness, of the troops thene being ostracised by the people of the Falls Road, and tremendous difficulties. Tension will be created by the re-emergence of the R.U.C. in the Bogside and the Falls Road.
I hope and urge that in the reintroduction of the R.U.C. there will be good sense and a degree of tolerance on both sides. If they are sent there merely to enforce the criminal law and nothing more, all will be well and good. If, however, through any foolishness or


irrationality, by giving way to stupid provocation or the like, the R.U.C. should again appear to be symbols of a repressive society rather than independent arbiters of what is right or wrong in terms of the criminal law, the situation could be extremely dangerous. Therefore, while I congratulate the Home Secretary on the cancellation of the marches, I hope that considerable care and prudence will be exercised in the way that the police are used in the Bogside and the Falls Road.
I turn now to the docks emergency. I voted against the Emergency Regulations and I shall vote tonight against the Adjournment Motion because of what, to my mind, is the paramount parliamentary matter involved. To me, this is of supreme importance. The fact that I am also a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union and happen to think that the dockers have a good claim is, as it happens, on this occasion subservient to the point which is most important to hon. Members.
If any Government or Administration are given such wide powers under Emergency Regulations as are being given to the present Government, irrespective of whether they are used their mere existence on the emergency Statute Book means that Parliament should always be ready and able to examine every action of the Executive within the shortest possible time of there appearing to be anything wrong in what they have done or of the appearance of any abuse or wrongful use of powers under Emergency Regulations. Whether or not there are precedents for our going away on holidays while there is an emergency, they do not absolve us in this Parliament from our responsibility for ensuring that the Regulations are used with fairness.
The second thing I am concerned about is the question of how and when troops are used. We know that in the East Riding of Yorkshire the troops have already made their preparations at the village of Driffield to establish a camp. There are 1,000 troops in the village to be used at Hull docks. This is a normal preparation; one can appreciate that; but what we do not know is where and when and how pressures will come to use the troops, who will judge what is perishable

and what is imperishable, who will decide on the necessity of moving goods and what are the essential goods among them in any particular cargo.
Showing great good sense, the dockers in Hull have unloaded drugs necessary for medical supplies and also material needed by spastics for making their Christmas cards. That is all very proper; but we have had no undertaking from the people importing other goods into Hull that they are prepared merely to cover the costs in order to save their goods from perishing and not to make any profit. One cannot expect persons in an industrial dispute to unload cargoes which are termed necessities if they know that the consequent result of their unloading of a particular cargo will be that profit will be made by the consignee, wholesaler or retailer. The purpose of industrial action is to bring pressure on those very people. Therefore, there has to be an agreement that if goods are unloaded no profits will be made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I think he is developing his argument a little too much in detail and without relating it strictly to the terms of the Motion. If he would oblige me I should be glad.

Mr. McNamara: I am very grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What I was trying to do was to take up a point which the Secretary of State made earlier when he rightly praised the attitude of the dockers and made some general noises about the making of profits. What I am saying is that in such an emergency as this that is one of the things which can create difficulties. Therefore, the House should be here and able to criticise any possibility of their being profiteering or unjust exploitation through the wrongful use of troops. On occasions the attitude of the dockers might appear to be unreasonable, but it might be that consignees or other people are being unreasonable.
I want to make another point, the fact that we are going to have the Pearson Report coming out early next week. It is one thing to say that the report will come out and that the Government will examine it. Fair enough. But there is more to it than that. The Government


will take an attitude to it. They are bound to take an attitude to it. If the Pearson Report comes out and gives one particular solution the Government may say, "Right. We accept that. That seems reasonable and proper". Or they may be against it. What they cannot do, having set up a Court of Inquiry, is to sit back, as they appear to have done when negotiations were going on between employees and employers, apparently take no side—but that is a question of dispute—and just say, "Here is the report. Get on with it, boys, and try to work it out". That will not produce a solution. The Government will have to take an attitude, and we need to be here on Monday or Tuesday next week when the Government are taking up their attitude, because then it will not be an industrial matter only but a parliamentary matter, with the Executive taking an attitude, when Members of Parliament have the right to examine the attitude of the Executive and the decisions they are taking.
This question of the Pearson Report and the attitude which the Government may or may not take to it is one of primary importance. It is not good enough to say that if the strike is prolonged—and I hope it will not be—we shall be coming back here to renew the emergency powers. We should be here to have our say and to challenge and examine what the Executive is doing. This is of prime importance to us as a parliamentary democracy.
When a new Government come to power one normally expects them to take a little time to look at the problems, to put their manifesto into perspective and work out legislation. Everyone understands that this is right and proper, al though most Governments generally have something prepared which can be put through quickly. One would not normally criticise the length of the recess because the Government obviously want time to do this. But there are occasions when it is foolhardy for a new Government to take this attitude, and a prime example of this is when the country is in a state of emergency, and I shall, therefore, vote against the Motion.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I join my hon. and right hon. Friends in opposing the Motion that the

House should adjourn from tomorrow until 27th October. My hon. Friends have given various reasons for opposing the Motion. I join them on the central issue that it is scandalous and a negation of parliamentary democracy for this House to go into the long Summer Recess when there is a national emergency and when so many policies enunciated by the Conservative Party during the election are not yet under the scrutiny of Parliament.
One crumb of mercy is that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is gracing the debate with his presence. He has a central and fundamental responsibility for the grave emergency which confronts our nation. He is the Minister responsible for the food of our people and for the food which is so vital to our children. [Laughter.] Right hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but their constituents will not laugh when they fail in their responsibility. I can understand the haste of right hon. Gentlemen to rush into the long recess. The last thing that a Government elected on a policy of the deliberate lie and the false hope want is to expose themselves to the scrutiny of Parliament. They need the long months of the Summer Recess to think up plausible excuses to put to the country for their failure to implement their promises.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the key figure in the crisis. It would be intolerable for the House to go into recess before the Minister of Agriculture has told the House plainly what stocks of food are available for distribution to the population. Will he tell the House how much meat is in cold storage available for distribution? I am not prepared to go into recess without that knowledge to enable me to judge whether the Government would be justified in taking the more extreme measures which have been referred to. It is not sufficient for the Minister of Agriculture to talk about buying peaches instead of apples and oranges. We want to know what stocks and reserves are held to maintain the flow of retail distribution.
The other fundamental responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman is to ensure that food prices do not rocket even higher than they have done over the last few days. It is particularly essential that he should do this in regard to the meat


which is now in coldstore. That meat probably has been in store for many months and came into the country long before the dock strike. It was purchased by importers at prices unaffected by increases that may occur because of the strike. When one bears in mind all the frozen food in cold storage, somebody is sitting on a gold mine.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot laugh this one off because he has a responsibility to ensure that the importers, the people who now own that meat in cold store, should give the same undertaking as has been given by the Transport and General Workers' Union. The union is prepared to move perishable food from the ships and its members are to give their wages to charity. Is it asking too much that this House should be told before we go into recess that the owners of that meat in cold store would give to charity any excess profits that they may make as a result of the shortage? Will right hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh that one off? Will they tell the public that it is a joke that their friends will make fortunes out of the unfortunate events of the dock strike?

Mr. Prior: I am quite sure that if we could get this meat out of cold store the people who own the meat would be prepared to co-operate to keep their prices to the level of prices ruling in the first two days of this week. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman will appeal to the dockers to get meat out of cold store, or to get chilled meat off a ship lying in London, I believe that we could make some progress.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for going that far. The chilled and frozen meat to which I am primarily referring is not that held in the docks. I am referring to the meat that is held in the cold stores beneath Smithfield meat market, where I am informed there is a vast tonnage of frozen and chilled imported meat. It does not need a single docker to remove that meat into the avenues of retail distribution. It is already free of dockland. I will gladly give way to the Minister again if he wishes to say that he will encourage owners to move that meat.

Mr. Prior: I have been encouraging owners at Smithfield and elsewhere to

keep down their prices. I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that certain commodity prices are now lower today than they were at the beginning of the week. But the real prospect is that there is a shortage of meat in the market, and where there is a shortage naturally the price tends to rise. If we could get the meat out of the docks and out of the ships the shortage would go and the price would come down. Nobody wants to see that more than the hon. Gentleman and myself.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am delighted that the Minister has indicated so clearly to the House that imported meat plays such a vital rôle in keeping meat at a very low price for the British housewife, whether in or out of strike conditions. Perhaps at some later stage he will be able to say, preferably before we go into recess, how he reconsiles that contribution to low-priced food for the British housewife with his declared policy, as Minister responsible for agriculture in the Conservative Government, of putting a levy on imported meat.
That is not the only reason why I am opposed to the House rising tomorrow for the Summer Recess. It is the most fundamental and vital reason, but there are others, and I will not apologise for dealing with one or two which are less in national importance but of vital importance to my constituents.
On behalf of my constituents, I cannot vote for this Motion on the basis of the Government's dilatory action in respect of a Thames flood barrier. If there is one issue which is vital to the citizens of London, it is the siting of a Thames flood barrier. We should be debating this before Parliament goes into recess. The plain, horrifying fact to which every citizen living within an area of 40 square miles in London is exposed is that at any moment his home could be flooded by the Thames overflowing its banks. For this Government to shut off Parliament without debating this issue and coming to a decision is a scandal of the first magnitude.

Mr. Michael Fidler: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that government ceases when this House goes into recess? If he is, does he base himself on his experience


as a member of the then Government party?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am suggesting that this miserable Government will take the wrong decision about the best site for a Thames flood barrier. They will fall into line with the desires of the Greater London Council and place the barrier up-stream, somewhere at Blackwall Reach, leaving miles of London's riverside and thousands of Londoners exposed to the risk of flooding.

Mr. John Nott: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Thames only overflows under a Conservative Government? I do not recall any reluctance on his part to go on holiday when his own party was in office.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman should study these matters more carefully. If he wishes to treat this grave matter seriously, I am surprised that he does not do me the courtesy of recognising that my own party suffered the lash of my tongue on this issue when it controlled the G.L.C. The Conservative-controlled G.L.C. and the present Government can expect the same treatment in the months ahead—especially in the coming three months if they care to reconsider their decision about adjourning.
I turn now to another vital issue which this House should debate before going into recess. It is not, as the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) might think, the sewage works at Erith. That is important, but there is an even more important issue than the filthy sewage works of the Greater London Council which pollutes my constituency. We should discuss that, of course, but it can wait until after the recess.
It would be scandalous and very expensive if we went into recess without first debating the financial catastrophe which has befallen the development by the G.L.C. of its housing estate at Thamesmead. Properties are being built there which, even on the most conservative estimate, will cost between £12,000 and £13,000 per unit of accommodation. It is quite obvious that that matter should be debated. The Government need pushing to set up a commission of inquiry into the whole of the

dismal and disastrous scheme which is under development at Thamesmead.
There are two other reasons, to which I wish to refer briefly, why I cannot support the Motion.
On 1st August this year, as the House will know, due to a disastrous decision by the previous Administration, the issue of rum in the Royal Navy will come to a stop. I believe that the threat of mutiny in the Royal Navy, as a result of the abolition of the rum tot, is extremely grave. I believe that we ought to debate this issue and bring to bear upon the Government all the pressure that we can to reverse that decision.
The last reason why we ought not to go into recess at this point is that we will not be able to debate the recommendations of the Boundary Commission and the Motions which have been put down by the Government until we return in October. This will be a matter of grave concern to those residents within the London Borough of Bexley who live within the Parliamentary constituency of Bexley. They will have to suffer the agony of three months recess before the Prime Minister, the Member for Bexley, during the course of the debate, as I am sure he will, makes clear whether he will stand by the electors of Bexley, who so misguidedly stood by him in the General Election. They ought not to suffer that agony for the next three months. We should debate that issue before we go into recess.
For all those reasons, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in opposing the Motion. It is a scandal that we should go into recess in such grave circumstances. I hope that we shall be able to persuade the Government to change their mind and to keep Parliament sitting.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: If the Motion is carried, hon. Members on both sides, when they return to their constituencies tomorrow, will be asked by their constituents why, Parliament on Monday having given to the Government emergency powers of such a wide magnitude affecting every citizen, because the dockers had gone on official strike and are now in their second week, the House of Commons has risen for three months.


I am convinced that no answer will satisfy the British public. Not only will the Government suffer, but also Parliament will be brought into disrepute, because people will surely want Parliament to remain in Session until at least the Pearson Committee has reported.
It was very difficult during Questions to the Leader of the House this afternoon to make the point that we were not trying to suggest that this House should decide whether the terms of reference of the Pearson Committee were satisfactory and to pass opinions upon them. We were saying, in effect, that when the Pearson Committee submits its report we should have an opportunity to discuss it.
We give the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity credit for the work that he has done in chairing the meetings between the employers and the unions. He has said that he will call the employers and the unions together to discuss the Pearson Committee's Report. When he does that he will have one overriding problem. If there are negotiable conditions within the Pearson Report, he will have to persuade the employers to negotiate whilst the men are still on strike. If he achieves that, he will then have to consider whether there is a basis for settlement, and whether such a settlement can be mutually agreed between the trade unions and the employers. But if there is not agreement, we should be available to question the Minister to discover what action he had suggested and to see whether hon. Members, without merely being critical of the Government, can make recommendations to help bring about a settlement.
I am convinced that it was not only the action of the union and the employers which made the Government withhold from sending in the troops. The attitude of hon. Members generally has demonstrated the dangers of putting the troops in. At the same time, our attitude has helped to persuade the T. & G.W.U. to recommend its Members to co-operate by taking certain steps.
All sensible hon. Members want to see a rapidly negotiated settlement. We do not want to be recalled in a month's time to again discuss and vote on the emergency powers. Hon. Members who have been involved in industrial disputes know

that this is not a light-hearted affair. Indeed, a dispute of this magnitude could not possibly have been entered into with the spirit of adventure. This is serious not only for the dockers but for the nation. It is a dispute on basic grievances, and it is to be hoped that the Pearson Committee can lay the basis for agreement. It is regrettable that we have had to wait for this committee to be established and that the dockers felt obliged to force the issue and go on strike.
If there cannot be a settlement, if the endeavours of the Pearson Committee and the Minister are not successful, then hon. Members must exert their influence on all concerned in an effort to find a settlement. The House voted by a large majority—some of us were opposed—to the introduction of Emergency Powers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said, they are contained in 19 pages, but, basically, they are designed to enable the Government to send in the troops if necessary. So far we have been successful in persuading the Government not to do that.
What will our constituents say if when we return to our areas Pearson has not reported, the strike is still on and prices continue to escalate? The Minister cannot deny that, for example, meat prices are rising. The major criticism now should not be of the dockers for striking but against unscrupulous people who are exploiting the situation. They are the guilty men and they should be exposed. The Minister will have to come off the fence and name names and decide whether to use his powers under the crisis measures, if those powers can be implemented. My right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) knows far more about this issue.

Mr. John Nott: Are there politically motivated men?

Mr. Orme: Who is politically motivated?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nott: I asked whether perhaps there may be politically motivated men.

Mr. Orme: There may be Conservative politically motivated men. I will not pass judgment on that. Probably we both have our views about that.
Attendance on the Government Front Bench is an indication of the seriousness with which the Government treat this debate. We believe this is a vital matter. When we vote tonight we shall not be hoping to be defeated; we shall be voting hoping to win. The Government ought to understand that the British

public will themselves take note of this debate and of the vote. They will want positive action from the Government. We shall vote against this Motion because we believe this matter is too serious for the House to rise at this time. I hope that my hon. Friends will fill the Lobby against the Motion tonight.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Fred Peart: My hon. and right hon. Friends have made some very telling points against this Motion.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Some did, but some did not get the chance.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) says that he has not had an opportunity.

Mr. Lewis: I say this not with bitterness, but it spoils my record, for I have opposed each Government consistently on these Adjournment Motions and unintentionally my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has prevented me from having a go at this Government.

Mr. Peart: It used to be my responsibility to defend these Motions. Tonight my hon. Friends have rightly concentrated in the main on the dock strike. There is a court of inquiry, and Lord Pearson will be reporting, I understand from replies by the Minister, next week. I hope that hon. Members will not be contemptuous about the attitude of the dockers. The union concerned has made a very responsible offer. It has discussed the removal of perishable foodstuffs. I would not like hon. Members to denigrate one section concerned in this dispute. The union has acted responsibly, and so have the dockers, who often are attacked. They have offered their services in unloading perishable foodstuffs. I hope hon. Members will not sneer at this activity. After all, many of these men and their families face hardship when they are on strike. I hope there will be no partisanship about this issue.
If there is not a settlement after the report has been received, I think Parliament should be recalled. I mean this. Many of my hon. Friends argued against the granting of the emergency powers and the Regulations. They made their position clear. I respect them for it. I did not go into the Lobby with them. I understand their argument tonight.
I believe that if after the publication of the Pearson Report there is no settlement, Parliament must be recalled. I hope that the Leader of the House will give me a reply on this. We need these assurances. I make no complaints about my hon. Friends' stressing this.
I am glad that they addressed many of their points of detail to the Minister of

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I will not embarrass the right hon. Gentleman. I remember when I had to deal with the seamen's strike. It is not an easy task for any Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to cope with the necessity of providing adequate supplies of food at the right prices. When I was Minister, many of my hon. Friends criticised me and probed me about these matters.
I believe that the Minister will be accorded the good will of the trade. I do not accept that vast sections of the industry are there to exploit the community. I got them to co-operate in very difficult circumstances. I wish the Minister well. If he fails, he will be subject to criticism in the House of Commons. It is his duty to protect the consumer. I believe that, with good will on all sides, it can be done. We shall watch the position carefully. My hon. Friends, who used to probe me, will certainly probe this Minister.
I am rather suspicious of the Minister for other reasons, nothing to do with the dock strike. In the course of a reply I had from the Prime Minister today on prices, he said that the right hon. Gentleman had been misreported. Today I have a copy of what he said about the C.A.P. and food prices.
On 29th July, 1966, in a debate on sea fisheries, the Minister said this:
The time has come when we should have higher prices for food and no subsidies for either the agricultural or the fishing industries. If we did that we would get competition working in both industries and the nation would get better value because the nation has been mollycoddled for too long by receiving cheap food."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 29th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 2127.]
Today the Minister of Employment and Productivity, in reply to my Question about his abolition of the early warning system and the constant watch procedure, argued for more competition in the food industry. I challenge him, because his party is to introduce a levy system. I am not now talking about the Common Market. This inevitably means higher prices for the consumer. [Interruption.]
I understand hon. Memers to be chiding me for quoting something said in 1966; but this is now the Government's official policy. It was confirmed


today. The right hon. Gentleman believes in higher food prices for the consumer, irrespective of any dock strike.

Mr. Prior: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that just before the election his own party and his own Government were seeking to introduce a system of import levies for meat which would have increased prices?

Mr. Peart: There have been discussions about the possibility of protected markets, but there has been no decision on levies. [Interruption.] Hon. Members must listen. Hon. Members opposite fought the election on this issue in rural areas. They argued that they should take considerable sums from the farmers which were to be used to protect the deficiency payment system and thus impose a burden on the consumer. That is their policy, and it is in their manifesto. [An HON. MEMBER: "We won the election."] Yes, they won the election on it, and the consumer will suffer because prices will go up.
I questioned the Prime Minister today about the Common Market, in view of an interview which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave to the Daily Express. It was an interview reported by a distinguished journalist, one of our ablest agricultural journalists, Alexander Kenworthy. This is what we read. The Minister told Mr. Kenworthy
quite bluntly that the cost to Britain of the Common Market's present farm policy was totally unacceptable. … He went on: 'The advantages of going in will have to be clearly seen by people in this country. The terms as set out in the White Paper published by the last Government in February were just not acceptable We must also know by early next summer whether this is a chance of success. …' Mr. Prior, who is also Minister of Food, is determined to damp down the price spiral in the shops. He will fight for a long change-over period to soften the impact on farmers and housewives.
That was dated 16th July. I asked the Prime Minister today to confirm that, in view of the negotiations in progress. I am pressing it now because the Minister is the Minister concerned with food prices. Does he still stand by what he said in this reported interview which he gave to a distinguished agricultural journalist?

Mr. Prior: As has been made perfectly plain, there were parts of the article

which were on the record and there were parts off the record.

Mr. Peart: That was quite a different answer from the one which the Prime Minister gave me today. The right hon. Gentleman said, it is true:
It would be in the interests of the farming industry and the national economy to produce as much as we can in this country.
Then he added:
If it was necessary to shield housewives against a quick rise in prices, I would be willing to consider consumer subsidies on food.
Does he stand by that?

Mr. Prior: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman should devote so much time to my article. All I can tell him is that, certainly, parts of that article were my views.

Mr. Peart: Yes, but it was denied by the Prime Minister. It is there on record, and the right hon. Gentleman believes in higher food prices. Not only that, he was worried about the effect of the Community's agricultural policy on the housewife here. He believes in higher prices for the consumer. The propaganda of the Tory Party during the election campaign was just cant and humbug, and hon. Members opposite know it. My hon. Friend who stressed this matter earlier was quite right to draw attention to it.
In many ways this Government have already shown their hand, on food prices to the consumer, on education—we have had a debate on the question of comprehensive education, and I shall not argue it now—and on the question of arms to South Africa. On matters which are vital to the economy, there has been double-talk, and many of my hon. Friends are suspicious of allowing the Executive to go into recess for three months.
I accept that I have defended Motions of this kind in the past, and I probably take an attitude different from that of my hon. Friends, but I understand their argument. There has been double-talk. They are suspicious of the Government's intentions. The Minister is involved in the dock strike, we have seen the report of his interview, and we have heard the double-talk. We shall have to watch him carefully, and we shall constructively criticise him.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept at once that the debate has been important. It has been conducted in a very sensible and perfectly properly worried mood in view of the circumstances in which we are placed, and, indeed, in a very good-tempered way. I thank all those right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part, because it is important that the matter should be discussed and properly ventilated.
The right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who was my predecessor, has had the task I now have of defending similar Motions. He was very fair in that part of his speech in which he said that he had defended them and not always in the circumstances in which we find ourselves now. I shall come to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) later, but normally, had it not been for the emergency situation, this would be regarded by precedent as something of a normal recess.
I agree that the emergency situation and the dock strike raise other problems. They have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley). They have also been raised on rather a different matter by two of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland, to whose points I shall come later.
First, I should make perfectly clear the position with regard to the emergency powers. They end on 15th August, and if, alas, the dock strike were still continuing it would, of course, be necessary before that date to have a new Proclamation to lay new Orders before the House, and within five days of their being laid to debate them in the House.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the position that would arise if the discussions my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity has promised immediately after the court of inquiry did not lead to a settlement. The best answer I can give at this stage is, first, that in any event the House would have to come back if the emergency were to be prolonged. But I accept at once that that in itself

is not a sufficient answer either to the right hon. Gentleman or to some of the other hon. Members who have raised the matter. Therefore, I can only say that if, alas, things continue to be wrong and the emergency has to be continued the Government would be perfectly prepared to discuss the timing, the nature and the length of any sitting through the usual channels. I think that that is a fair assurance, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that it is.

Mr. Peart: I pressed for this, and I think it is reasonable, and accept it.

Mr. Whitelaw: That really deals as best I can with the problems of the dock strike and the emergency. Perhaps I should only add to those hon. Members whose worries in the matter I fully recognise, and whose knowledge of the problems involved I also fully recognise, that so soon as the court of inquiry has reported my right hon. Friend, who has earned considerable tributes from both sides of the House and from a wider public for the way in which he has handled the problems, will certainly do as he promised this afternoon and do his best to help in any way he can towards a settlement.
On the question of prices the right hon. Gentleman was as generous to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as he always is. He was very fair in what he said about his experience from the seamen's strike and about what my right hon. Friend is now doing about prices in the unfortunate emergency in which we now find ourselves.
In the rest of the discussion I know that the right hon. Gentleman enjoyed himself, but I am not sure that he was so generous, and, though it is nothing to do with me, I was not quite sure how what he said was related to the question of whether we should adjourn. I am not commenting on what it was, but only on what it was not.
The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) asked a question about the Royal Mint. I know that if he had had the chance the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) would have done so also. I mention him because I wish to apologise to him for a mistaken answer which I gave during business questions. It may


have been my first mistaken answer, but if I am retained in this office I expect that it will not be my last. I am sure that every hon. Member will realise that it was a mistake made without any foreknowledge. I was entirely in error and I wish to apologise to the hon. Member for Poplar and the right hon. Member for Stepney.

Mr. Russell Kerr: What was the mistake?

Mr. Whitelaw: I said that I did not understand that a statement about this matter was to be made before the recess. Had I been fully informed at that moment, I should have known that even as I was speaking the statement was waiting.
I took the responsibility for deciding that some statements should be made by written rather than oral answers, because it is important that there should not be too many oral statements in the House at any one time. All Governments have always had this problem. The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) raised the question of the location of the Royal Mint.
The decision, as the right hon. Gentleman was fair enough to admit, was merely to confirm a decision made by the Government of which he was a Cabinet member. What my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said at that time was that when we were in office we should look at the whole problem again. He promised a proper review. That review has been conducted. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's strictures. I am informed by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that over this decision he spent some five hours in meetings with 10 leaders of the trade union side of the joint industrial council last week. These discussions and the other consideration of the question indicate the perfectly proper review which was promised before the election.

Mr. Shore: Four months ago the present Financial Secretary specifically urged an independent and full inquiry, which was not the same thing at all as the Minister himself having a look, no doubt a serious look, at the papers and seeing the unions. There is a great difference, which will not be easily understood by the men at the Mint.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not wish to dispute the matter, but my hon. Friend had certainly

promised that we would look at it again and have an inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman has now slipped in the word "independent", but I do not think that what my hon. Friend said at the time can be read as meaning an independent inquiry. However, there was an inquiry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) raised what for their constituencies is the extremely important problem of the effect on Northern Ireland of the dock strike, particularly the effect on agricultural products from Northern Ireland.
I accept at once that this is a serious matter. As for the rest of us, the best answer for them would be that the dock strike should be ended and the dockers return to work. In the end, there is no substitute for that. But I understand that in the emergency situation in which we are placed my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Home Office had a meeting with the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland who expressed extremely serious concern for Northern Ireland's agriculture if the strike, alas, continued.
The hon. Member also asked for an assurance about the open general licences. I call his attention to a statement by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in which he said that licences will not be required on and after 24th July for exports from Northern Ireland. That goes a long way to meet that point.

Mr. Kilfedder: I asked for an assurance because there is an emergency situation in Northern Ireland. I am entitled to ask for an assurance that if the strike continues after Monday next the Government will take every means they deem necessary to ensure the movement of Ulster's agricultural produce to Britain.

Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I must confine myself to what assurances the Government have given on this delicate situation. The Government have said that it is their undoubted duty to sustain the life of the community. The whole House recognised that Mr. Jones' recommendations about the movement of certain cargoes


is helpful. I hope, as does everyone, that his recommendation will be accepted and carried out by the local union organisations in various ports. Everyone is bound to wait and see what happens. I hope that this recommendation is implemented. I must confine myself to assurances about sustaining the life of the nation. If I were to give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks I should be going beyond that. I have gone as far as I can. I have helped my hon. Friend about licences, and that is as far as I can properly go.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman go one step further and say that when and if the dockers do go in to move perishable goods, he will appeal to the wholesalers and retailers not to put up the prices on these goods? It would upset the dockers if they knew that they had gone in and broken their own strike to get perishable goods out only to see that prices were going up because of their activities.

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I want to be careful in not going another step further in this situation. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture made clear that he would do exactly what the hon. Gentleman asked.
The right hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) made a most remarkable statement when he said it was wrong to have a recess. It was not a view he took when he was a member of the previous Government. He also raised various points about the strike, to which I have replied. He tried to persuade me that I should give an undertaking that the Government would take no decisions during the recess. No Government has ever given any such undertaking, and it would be foolish of me to think of doing so. Certainly the Government of which he was a member never gave such undertakings.

Mr. Stonehouse: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands what I said. I was not aginst Ministers taking time to make decisions. What I was against was the fact that they would be announcing the decisions during the recess and hon. Members would have no opportunity to cross-examine them.

Mr. Whitelaw: That was what I thought I said.
However, I am slightly surprised that the right hon. Member for Wednesbury should want to debate the subject of postal charges, because during his long intervention earlier today I did not notice from the faces of his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that they were enjoying it. I do not think that they would have been pleased to debate that subject, with him intervening.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) raised the question of Cammell Laird and various pledges which he said had been made by the Conservative candidate in Birkenhead on behalf of the Shadow Cabinet. I do not have knowledge of this matter. I do not think any Minister of any Government would necessarily wish to endorse every statement made by all the candidates of his party in any General Election. However, the right hon. Gentleman made a point which is being investigated. I have been in touch with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Technology, who has undertaken to consider this matter urgently. He will be writing to the right hon. Gentleman. That is as far as I can go.

Mr. Dell: The pledge was made by a Conservative candidate with, according to him, the authority of the Shadow Cabinet, specifically the Minister of Technology.

Mr. Whitelaw: I thought that that came under the general umbrella of what I said. I will look into the point. However, it does not seem to have made much difference because, for better or worse—and I suppose that I should regret it—the right hon. Gentleman seems to have done rather well at the General Election.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North made some kind personal remarks about me. I always enjoy such remarks; who does not? I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said. I enjoyed his delightful article in the Daily Express. He said that there was a danger of Summer Recesses devaluing a parliamentary democracy. Summer Recesses have been very much of the same order over a long time under Governments of all parties, and I am following precedent. Perhaps the precedent is wrong, but it has been commended by many of my predecessors. I


am not convinced that Summer Recesses devalue a democracy. That is not inconsistent with some of the points which I made, and which the hon. Gentleman welcomed, in the debate on the Address.
Hon. Members have said, very properly, that a recess of whatever length is not a holiday for hon. Members. That is correct. There can be argument about where the balance lies, but it is important that hon. Members should get out into the country and the world outside and get to know what is going on there. It is perhaps fair to say that we have all had a period recently outside which some found more profitable than others.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) raised the question of Radio Humberside. I note what he said and I shall pass it on. The hon. Member was generous and reasonable about the situation in Northern Ireland and what might, perhaps, be called the balanced decisions, on the one hand, of cancelling the parades and, on the other hand, of ensuring very properly that the police move prudently into the area of Falls Road and the Bogside. I give the absolute assurance that these police are there to carry out normal police duties, which they will exercise with proper prudence. I hope that the hon. Member and other hon. Members will feel that this is a genuine advance which all of us in the House should commend and will hope that it will lead to an increasingly peaceful situation in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) made one of his characteristic speeches. One must not take them too seriously. Nevertheless, I must tell the hon. Member that I enjoyed much of what he said, as I have from time to time in the past.
Those are most of the points that were raised in the debate. Once again, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. On the whole, I think that the proposition that I am putting before the House is reasonable, bearing in mind the assurances I have given about the docks strike and the emergency situation. I therefore commend the Motion to the House.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: We have in the Motion a unique situation. I refer to the problem of debating the proposed Adjournment of the House in a situation in which a large number of measures are to be introduced by the Government purely as a result of the timing of the General Election. The past month has seen the preparation of the programme of the Government which is, presumably, to be implemented over the next few months. That is the same period as the House will be in recess. A number of my hon. Friends have regarded this as such a serious matter that they are opposed to such a long Adjournment. I add my voice to theirs and say that this is a serious matter to me also. This is not simply a paper fight.
I am not speaking on behalf of special interests, only wishing to obtain certain satisfactions from whoever winds up a debate of this kind. There are large and serious matters that will be resolved by the new Government, and the resolving of them will be decided during the recess.
This is a matter of enormous importance to back-benchers. Either those decisions will be delayed and produced at the end of the recess or, what is much more likely, one decision after another will be taken without any influence being brought to bear by the House on those decisions. We know that many of those decisions are interrelated—for example, the Concorde and expenditure cuts, and cuts in investment grants; one has a relation to the other. If we express ourselves on one, it can have an influence on the next item on which decisions will be made.
This is the historic rôle of the House. As back-benchers we have an influence upon Ministers who come before us—for example, the Minister of Agriculture, who tells us that he will have an influence on those who threaten to increase prices. He said this evening that he will dissuade and discourage those who want to raise prices. The obvious question, which we would want to put to him throughout the recess if it were not so decided, would be to ask: if he can do that at a time of a docks strike, why he cannot accept that he has the same influence on those who want to increase prices throughout the year? Why does he deny himself this—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Pym): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division;

Resolved,

That this House, at its rising to-morrow, do adjourn till Tuesday 27th October.

Mr. MORE and Mr. CLEGG were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 36.

Division No. 10.]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Gummer, Selwyn
Pounder, Rafton


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Atkins, Humphrey
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Baker, W. H. K.
Higgins, Terence L.
Raison, Timothy


Benyon, W.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Redmond, Robert


Biggs-Davison, John
Holland, Philip
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Holt, Miss Mary
Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)


Boscawen, R. T.
Hornby, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bowden, Andrew
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bray, Ronald
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunt, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rost, Peter


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
James, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Channon, Paul
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Chapman, Sydney
Jennings, J. c. (Burton)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Jopling, Michael
Sharples, Richard


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Simeons, Charles


Churchill, W. S.
Kershaw, Anthony
Soref, Harold


Cooke, Robert
Kilfedder, James
Speed, Keith


Coombs, Derek
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Spence, John


Cooper, A. E.
Kinsey, Joseph
Stainton, Keith


Cordle, John
Kirk, Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor


Corfield, F. V.
Knox, David
Stokes, John


Cormack, Patrick
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Curran, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Sutcliffe, John


Davies, John (Knutsford)
Loveridge, John
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Dixon, Piers
McMaster, Stanley
Tebbit, Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Madel, David
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Elliott, R. w. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mather, Carol
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Eyre, Reginald
Maude, Angus
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fell, Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Trew, Peter


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Fidler, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Waddington, David


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Moate, Roger
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Molyneaux, James
Walker, Rt. Hn Peter (Worcester)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Money, Ernle D.
Ward, Dame Irene


Fortescue, Tim
Monks, Mrs, Connie
Warren, Kenneth


Fowler, Norman
Mudd, David
Weatherill, Bernard


Fox, Marcus
Normanton, Tom
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Fry, Peter
Nott, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gibson-Watt, David
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Goodhew, Victor
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Worsley, Marcus


Gorst, John
Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)
Younger, Hon. George


Green, Alan
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Peel, John
Mr. Jasper More and


Grylls, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Mr. Walter Clegg.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Prescott, John


Atkinson, Norman
Freeson, Reginald
Roper, John


Barnett, Joel
Gilbert, Dr. John
Rose, Paul B.


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Booth, Albert
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Skinner, Dennis


Buchan, Norman
Kaufman, Gerald
Stallard, A. W.


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Kerr, Russell
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Latham, Arthur
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Davidson, Arthur
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Wellbeloved, James


Dormand, J. D.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Whitehead, Phillip


Driberg, Tom
Mendelson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Edelman, Maurice
Mikardo, Ian
Mr. Stanley Orme and


Faulds, Andrew
Millan, Bruce
Mr. Eric Heffer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Teaching Council (Scotland) Bill and on the Motion relating to Privileges may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Atkins.]

LOCAL LOANS (INCREASE OF LIMIT) ORDER

11.10 p.m.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): I beg to move,
That the Local Loans (Increase of Limit) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
Section 4(2) of the National Loans Act, 1968, provided a limit on gross issues of loans by the Public Works Loan Board to local authorities and others of £1,000 million. It also provided for the increase of this original limit in "steps" of up to £1,000 million each on not more than three occasions. The first increase was made in June, 1969, and this Order provides for the second of these increases.
The sum available within the old limit is £522 million, but on the basis of the Budget estimates local authorities are entitled to draw a further £711 million from the board during 1970–71 under the existing rules for local authority access to the Public Works Loan Board. There is, therefore, a risk of the Public Works Loan Board "drying up" early in the autumn when local authorities become entitled to take up their full loan quotas from the board. The purpose of this Order is to guard against that risk.
This increase in lending limits does not, of course, imply any increase in public expenditure, but is merely designed to enable local authorities to continue to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board at the level agreed earlier this year. On this basis the new limit would last approximately a further 12 months. Local authorities' borrowing powers remain exactly as they were. They are neither increased nor reduced. The effect of the Order is to do no more than enable the Public Works Loan Board to honour the obligations laid upon it by the Government.
It is my pleasure to continue the well-established tradition of asking hon. Members to join me in expressing thanks to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the services which they have continued to render with such skill and on an entirely voluntary basis.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Alan Williams: I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the Public Works Loan Commissioners for their work.
What the hon. Gentleman has put forward represents the continuation of our own policies, and we appreciate the fact that his Order involves no increase in public expenditure. However, I would be grateful for some clarification on two points: how much has been lent since the 1969 Order, and what repayments have been received?
The Minister is right in saying that he would be coming to the House in about 12 months for further authority. It is appropriate that where possible we should observe a 12-months' interval since it gives the opportunity for a more thorough scrutiny by the House where hon. Members think that desirable.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Higgins: If I could answer the specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman, the figures he asked for are £597 million for 1968–69; £677 million for 1969–70, and to June, 1970, approximately £204 million.
Repayments of principle in 1968–69 were £129 million and of interest £236 million. The figures in 1969–70 were repayment of principle £152 million and of interest £276 million; up to June, 1970, repayment of principle £35 million and of interest £69 million.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks and I understand the point he makes about the timing of the occasions on which the Government of the day feel it necessary to come before the House. This is determined by the extent of the advances made, but in due course it will be necessary to have further legislation on this point and he will perhaps know that this is a matter I raised myself last time it was necessary to legislate.
I sympathise with what the hon. Member said but I think we are right to stick


to a limit rather than to a specific period of time.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Local Loans (Increase of Limit) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.

FISHING VESSELS (GRANTS)

11.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move,
That the White Fish (Inshore Vessels) and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
This scheme provides for the payment for the 12 months from 1st August of white fish subsidy for vessels under 80 feet in registered length and of herring subsidy for all sizes of herring vessels, most of which are also under 80 feet. As the House will know, subsidy for the deep-sea fleet has been dealt with separately and—if I may stray for a few seconds, Mr. Speaker—the scheme providing for that was a three-year scheme, with a year still to run, and is not, therefore, before us tonight.
It has been the policy of successive Governments over a considerable period to settle the rates of subsidy for the inshore and herring fleets each year after reviewing their degree of prosperity as revealed by the operating results. After considering the Fleck Report in 1961, the Government of that day decided to continue this practice; and the last Administration carried this on, and, indeed, reaffirmed it in 1968 after their review of the support policy which resulted in new subsidy arrangements for the deep-sea fleet.
Though there have been differences in emphasis, the object has been to provide for these important sections of the fishing industry the backing needed to ensure tolerable conditions and rewards.
My right hon. Friends have, therefore, laid this scheme, in the same way as previous annual schemes have been laid, though we shall be taking a closer look at the policy in due course along with that for the deep-sea fleet the operation of which right hon. Gentlemen opposite

had in any case undertaken to review before the end of this year.
Over the years the general state of prosperity of the inshore and herring fleets has enabled subsidy rates to be reduced from time to time by Governments from either side. On this occasion, though I am glad to say that the overall position is reasonably buoyant, the scheme before the House will continue the support at the current level: it makes no changes in the voyage rates of subsidy, and the slight changes it makes in the stonage rates, which are linked with decimalisation next year, are expected to result in a slight increase in overall payments.
Before I say more about the details of the scheme I would like to set it against the general state of the industry. The value of the white fish and herring landings in the United Kingdom in 1969 by the vessels covered by the scheme was £19·3 million, an increase of £1 million compared with 1968. Overall this is not an unsatisfactory position.
The level of white fish landings was helped by the good 1967 haddock brood, of which more of marketable size began to appear in the catches, but this was, unfortunately, offset to some extent by exceptionally bad weather at the beginning of 1969.
The herring catch, which increased by 28 per cent. in value compared with 1968, was greatly helped by the strong European demand in the Scottish west coast fisheries resulting from generally poor catches in the North Sea and elsewhere.
The impact of these favourable factors has been chiefly in Scotland, so the increase in the white fish and herring landings has been mainly in Scotland, with only a marginal increase in England and Wales and a marginal decrease in Northern Ireland.
I now turn to the operating results in 1969. It is probably appropriate that I should refer to Scotland first, since over two-thirds of the landings within the scope of this scheme are made in ports there. I am glad to say that for Scottish vessels the average profit before depreciation was 16 per cent. higher in 1969 than it was in 1968. In England and Wales, on the other hand, 1969 turned out less well than 1968. Average profit before depreciation fell by 20 per cent. Northern Ireland


vessels, like those in Scotland, had a good year. Their average rose by 19 per cent.
The Fishery Departments, of course, discussed these results with representatives of the inshore industry from all parts of the United Kingdom, so that we could see what the overall position was in perspective.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether the consultations took place before or after the General Election?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to to my hon. Friend for his intervention. These consultations have been continuing since the end of 1969. The operating results that we are discussing were the results of the industry during 1969, and these consultations with the industry have been continuing since that time.
The overall position of the United Kingdom fleet as a whole is certainly not unsatisfactory. United Kingdom landings and profitability have both risen. In those circumstances, we do not believe that a general increase in subsidy could be justified. However, I want to deal fairly with the representations that have been made to us for higher rates either for England and Wales as a whole, or, as I know my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) is interested, for particular regions or ports. I would, in fairness, point out that if we were to provide for differential rates either on a country basis or on a port basis, not only would this be a departure from the usual practice of applying the subsidy rates uniformly throughout the United Kingdom, but it could also, we feel, be open to objection as a matter of principle.
I am sure, as all who have experience of the inshore fishing industry know, that the inshore fishermen are versatile and can prosecute the kind of fishing, methods of fishing and, to some extent, the area of fishing that suit them best. On the whole, we think it right that they should be free to do so without the distortion of preferential rates favouring this or that section of the industry.
I appreciate that there are bound to be variations from year to year in the relative success of different groups and classes, but it follows that there must be an element of taking the rough with the smooth. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have, I think, resisted special treament for particular groups on these grounds in the past.
We have noted with satisfaction that up to the end of May landings of white fish and herring by inshore boats in England and Wales were up by £½ million compared with 1969, representing a 25 per cent. increase, against a 22 per cent. increase in Scotland in the same period. In the circumstances, we have come to the conclusion that the right course is to leave the subsidy rates for the coming year much as they are now, with the minor adjustments in stonage rates which I have mentioned.
The changes in the rates of stonage subsidy are slight, and the new amounts will convert conveniently to the new currency next February. We have increased from 11d. to 1s. per stone the rate which applies to most white fish used for human consumption. Most of the stonage subsidy is paid at that rate. The other rates have been slightly reduced. Balancing the rates together, we estimate that the changes in stonage rates will be almost self-balancing; and, taking the overall position, the scales tip slightly in favour of the fishermen.
I have dealt with our proposals for rates of subsidy, but the scheme also sets out the conditions of payment, and here we are not proposing any major changes this year. Last year there were some changes in the qualification required by some of the smaller boats to make them eligible for voyage rate subsidy. The simplification is being continued, and the boats concerned will be paid subsidy at voyage rates if they earned at least £250 in subsidy in 1969.
This year we have decided to do some weeding out of earlier schemes which are now spent, and this is the reason for the revocations provided for in paragraph 2 of the scheme and for the list of schemes in Schedule 4. I should, perhaps, mention the omission of a provision contained in the 1969 scheme dealing with the manner in which subsidy should be disbursed among crews subject to existing agreements. This was paragraph 9 of the scheme. The reason for this omission is that since recognised sharing arrangements already exist in the inshore and herring fleets, the provision is unnecessary in a scheme dealing solely with these fleets.
I have mentioned some of the points in the scheme and some of the differences in anticipation of issues hon. Members might raise, and I hope that this will be


of help. It is our intention to promote the prosperity of the industry. We believe that the proposals embodied in the scheme will assist in this direction, and I therefore commend the scheme to the House.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: In some respects I felt as though I was looking at a mirror reflection of myself as the Under-Secretary gave his analysis of the fishing situation and of this Instrument. I felt the same when I read the scheme, for, despite the changes which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the position is virtually unchanged. However, it would be ungracious of me not to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being appointed to his present office, a post which I occupied for three extremely happy years. I wish him well.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary will get a good ride tonight, particularly as he has virtually adopted my scheme. But I warn him that I may not be able to say the same in future. I was interested in his comment that the Government intend to sustain the efficiency of the fishing industry. We received the approval of both the Under-Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with a certain amount of trepidation. Some of their hon. Friends will be a little anxious. In the similar debate to this last year, the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) quoted the Fishing News as saying that
the rates of subsidy for the coming year are likely to cause disappointment to many Scottish fishermen.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July 1969; Vol. 787, c. 1423.]
He was referring to identical figures to those for this year; yet there has been no change or upward move.
The only change has been impelled by decimalisation. Mostly it has been a rounding up. I hope that this will be looked into on the prices side. I am glad that it has been rounded up, but to the same extent we would like to see some helpful lead on prices. This is extremely important, especially in the present situation. This Order comes in a period when there is intense interest as to the effect of the present emergency on food prices.
I have not been made particularly happy by some earlier announcements by the Minister of Agriculture, who seems to

enunciate high prices as a matter of policy. The phrase quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) about the right hon. Gentleman was:
the nation has been molly-coddled for too long by receiving cheap food".
It does not encourage us at a time when every housewife is anxious about prices and the Minister is identified with a policy of high prices. Nor have I felt particularly happy that he has been identified with a policy of ending subsidies. He said that he would
like to see the Government working towards a system of no Government support for the fishing industry.
and that if food prices rose the industry would be
in a more healthy position."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 2127.]
Whereas in agriculture up to now Tory policy has been for a reduction in the guaranteed prices and a move over to a levy system, nevertheless, they have decided to maintain production grants. Of course, the equivalent of production grants in agriculture so far as fishing is concerned is the grants we have before us. Therefore, whether the Minister rejects an extension of subsidies, as he did a year ago, and the Tunstall proposals for guaranteed prices, we are given cause for anxiety. If, however, he brings forward schemes identical to mine, we will forgive him and give him support. I hope that he will deny his Prior commitments.

Dr. J. Dickson Mahon: Very good.

Mr. Buchan: It is not very good, but it is perhaps the best one can produce after such an extraordinary day.
We often use these fishing industry debates to get information, and I should like to get a comment on the Cameron Committee. When will its report be published? There is one big omission which I have noticed. For a long time the hon. Gentleman, and certainly his hon. Friends, have continued with a barrage on what they regarded as an anomaly—having a levy for shellfish but no subsidy for shellfish. I hope that the Minister will explain why a subsidy is not included for shellfish.
With whom have the discussions taken place? The important point is when the


Ministerial decisions are made. With the 20 per cent. change in the English and Welsh situation, it is the year's workings that the Government should have been more concerned with rather than with the improvement, which we all welcome, in the English and Welsh situation since January of this year.
Another reason for anxiety in the industry relates to the appointments.
In a recent debate on a Measure giving further support to the White Fish Authority the two tellers for those opposing the Measure were the present Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Therefore, we shall need an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that some of his previous comments about the authority were merely late night games. Earlier this year, referring to a publicity scheme by the authority, the right hon. Gentleman said that he could not criticise the scheme because it had been produced by a former publicity officer of the Conservative Party. The right hon. Gentleman then said:
I have no hesitation in saying that he made a much better job of publicity for the Conservative Party than he is ever likely to do for the Authority or the industry. … I do not like the Authority at all. I think that it is a useless organisation. The extraordinary thing about the Authority is that one cannot find anyone to say a good word about it.
If responsible people in the House are prepared to say such a thing about the authority, it is no wonder that nobody can be found who will say a good word for it. The authority has done a good job. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will retract those words.
In the past certain hon. Members opposite have been antagonistic to subsidies and to organisations which have carried out research. We shall certainly expect to have a rapid disavowal from the right hon. Gentleman tonight. He ended his speech on the publicity scheme with these words:
It would be much more sensible of the Government if they recognised the facts and gave up support of the White Fish Authority, disbanded it, and allowed the very capable people who are members of it to do other jobs and to serve the country to greater advantage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1970; Vol. 797, cc. 1277–80.]

The Minister can tell us more about that tonight. The industry will be curious to hear the answer.
There has been much discussion as to whether there should be amalgamation between the two relevant authorities, the Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority. No reference was made to that earlier. If the Government will drop, as they must, their opposition to the authority and the board, the question of amalgamation arises. I ask the Under-Secretary to remember that inshore fishing, and, above all, on the herring side, is extremely important to Scotland. If there is to be amalgamation, I expect him to secure the kind of Scottish interests which we have through the separate Herring Industry Board. There is also the question of the location of the headquarters, which I hope will be in Scotland.
Finally, there is the question of industrial fishing. With a fish meal and fertiliser industry which involves us in £32 million of imports every year, I have always wondered why we have never managed to put the kind of resources into solving this problem that we have devoted, for example, to the smelter. I offer this as a task for the recess for the Under-Secretary: if we tackled this on a large scale instead of only on a small scale with one factory on the west coast, it might help us to get over the hump of the problem.
I have stuck very closely to the scheme. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he presented it. I hope that it suggests that he has turned over a new leaf. I hope that his right hon. Friend in winding up will demonstrate that his earlier expressions were merely young spirits and that he is treating this as responsibly as we shall expect him to.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: I have assisted—as the French say—at the passage of white fish schemes off and on for about 20 years, and this is the first time that I have ventured to address the House on the subject. I have assisted at that passage in a more or less passive way over these 20 years with varying degrees of bewilderment and incomprehension, and I am stimulated to intervene tonight by a faint moment of comprehension during the


speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I understood him to say that the fishing fleet this year was reasonably buoyant, which I found reassuring.
After all these years as a Member representing a constituency with a substantial electorate which does not catch fish, except sometimes in the River Avon if the pollution level falls reasonably low, and does not process fish, but does eat fish, I felt that the time had come to put a question to my right hon. Friend which would enable me once and for all to decide how I ought to vote on this scheme.
There has been a great deal of talk about subsidies and white fish. Could my right hon. Friend simply tell me, taking a reasonable cross-section—if that is the right fishmongering term—what sort of percentage of the price which my constituents pay is represented by the subsidy which they also pay? This, I think, is a reasonable question for any consuming constituency to ask. I do not think it should be very difficult for my right hon. Friend to give me an answer, and I hope that he will.

11.42 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) for intervening in this debate. I thought he was going to ask far more difficult questions than that. He might even have asked me about some of the speeches I have made on white fish over the years, as the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) did. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for paying me the compliment of referring for the third time today to a remark that I made in 1966 when discussing white fish subsidies, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to save you the embarrassment of having to call me to order I do not intend to get involved in that subject tonight.
We are tonight debating a very small, closely defined scheme which deals with the inshore fleet, and it would be wrong if I strayed into a discussion of the White Fish Authority or other bodies. All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that, as I said in reply to a Question on Tuesday, in due course I shall be having full discussions with the Chairman of the

White Fish Authority and with the Herring Industry Board and, as I think I said on that occasion, under our new style of Government we shall take our time in making up our minds what to do, and then we shall come to the House and announce it.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman has repeated the answer that he gave on Tuesday about his new style of Government, but it means that his new style of Government is involved in considerable public expenditure. It also means that many people who have interests in the industry will be watching very carefully the type of decisions that are made from the catching side, right through to the wholesale and retail side of the industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman make his statement on the future of the White Fish Authority by the end of this year?

Mr. Prior: It is likely that by the end of this year I shall make a statement. In fact, I can give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking now that I shall make a statement before the end of this year about the White Fish Authority and other bodies, as I think it is very important that the authority and the people who work for it, as well as the fishing industry, should not be kept—

Mr. Buchan: Dangling.

Mr. Prior: —dangling, if that is the right word, for too long, but for the moment this is outside the scope of the debate, and I should not want to get further involved in that issue.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. He asked about the subsidy on shellfish. The hon. Gentleman claimed a little earlier to have been the author of this document. As he, as the author, did not put in any subsidy for shellfish, and as it is outside the context of the Act on which the scheme is based, I imagine the hon. Gentleman knows that the answer is that we are not going to give a subsidy on shellfish.

Mr. Buchan: I made that clear. My point was to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he explained his decision to his hon. Friends who had been pressing us to include shellfish. It was they who were pressing us. I resisted it. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman did the same. He is right.

Mr. Prior: A little while ago the hon. Gentleman was asking whether I would give more subsidy. Now he praises me for resisting a subsidy. Now one way, now another: that just about sums up the Opposition's position now.
The hon. Gentleman asked me with whom there had been consultations. The answer is, with all the inshore associations in Scotland, plus the Fisheries Organisation Society, generally representative of inshore men in England and Wales, and, as is customary, separately with the Grimsby Seiners' Association. I hope that he is satisfied with that answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon asked how much subsidy went towards the price of fish. We are dealing here with only a section of the industry, the white fish section. The subsidy is about 1s. a stone on the smaller landings, although it is done on a voyage basis for the larger ships. It varies according to what the fish are, but at 1s. per stone, if my hon. Friend takes the average price which the fish make per stone, he can work out the percentage. It is a comparatively small percentage. On the whole, fish is cheap and in plentiful supply, and at present it is a most valuable commodity for the housewife.
Although this is a narrow debate, it is, perhaps, fortunate that the scheme should come before the House at this time, when hon. and right hon. Members can be reminded of the job that the inshore fleet, just as much as the rest of the industry, does.
Perhaps I may end on a personal note. I have taken part in fishing debates in the House over a good many years. I am proud to represent a fishing constituency. I have made it one of my aims that I shall be Minister responsible not only for food and for agriculture but for fish as well. I have undertaken that this will be one of my jobs in the Department, and I shall look forward to the many debates which will take place on the fascinating subject of white fish.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the White Fish (Inshore Vessels) and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.

GAS (BORROWING POWERS) ORDER

11.49 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Sir John Eden): I beg to move,
That the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.
The House will be familiar with the subject of gas. The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) will, doubtless, recognise this Order. I am glad to see him opposite me tonight, and I look forward to taking part in a number of debates with him, though I hope that not too many will be about gas.
The purpose of the Order is to raise the limit on the Gas Council's borrowing powers from £1,600 million to £2,100 million. The amount of £1,600 million was fixed by the Gas and Electricity Act 1968. That Act prescribed an upper limit of £2,400 million and provided that any increased borrowing required above £1,600 million would have to have the approval of the House. Since 1968 the gas boards and the Gas Council have invested about £550 million in the further development of the industry. New capital is being employed at the rate of £200 million a year. Against the figure of £1,600 million, outstanding borrowing is now about £1,500 million. It is therefore necessary to extend the permitted borrowing limit.
It would have been possible to go straight forward to the maximum of £2,400 million prescribed by the 1968 Act, but that would have been rather a big jump. I think that it is right to move by stages. In this way the House is given an opportunity to debate the progress of the industry and to consider the direction in which it is going.
As it has done on similar occasions in the past, the Gas Council has most helpfully prepared a booklet, which I gather has been made available to hon. Members. Copies have been placed in the Library. The booklet gives quite a considerable amount of detail on the background to this borrowing Order, on the progress of the industry so far and its plans for its further development. Hon. Members will not wish me to recapitulate all that is printed in the booklet, which


they have been able to study carefully for themselves. The booklet sets out what is being done and what is planned to be done to enable the industry to continue exploiting the discoveries of natural gas. With the Order the industry can continue on its present programme within the guidelines laid down and in respect of the volume of gas already proved. The aim is still 4,000 million cubic feet per day by 1975.
The Order seeks to establish a new borrowing limit. The extent to which the industry will need to call on the permitted level of borrowing in any one year is another matter. That depends on many factors—on the success of its marketing policies, its ability to control costs, the kind of surplus it can earn, and the accuracy of its investment judgment. The boards and the Gas Council submit plans in the form of a five-year capital expenditure programme rolled forward annually. These are then co-ordinated to form a nation-wide scheme for the distribution of natural gas, which is an enormous operation involving the expenditure of large sums of money.
The industry has been set the task of quadrupling its pre-natural gas sales by the middle of this decade. This means the construction of terminals for the reception of gas, the development of a national transmission system and storage system, and the conversion of appliances. The industry is well up to its programme. The biggest single item of natural gas expenditure has been on the reception and bulk transmission facilities. The Easing-ton and Bacton terminals have been in operation for some time, and a third terminal is planned at Theddlethorpe in Lincolnshire. This will shortly be under construction. The national grid system has been expanded by means of loops to carry North Sea gas in its far greater volume to all area boards, including Scotland, which was reached by the new trunk line earlier in the summer. This is a skilled and costly business. The extension from Leeds to Newcastle alone cost £10 million. The total cost of the national transmission projects, including the on-shore terminals, has been roughly £150 million. About £100 million a year will be needed for the next three years to complete them and to install the necessary

compressor system and storage facilities.
For some people the benefit of all this expenditure may not be immediately apparent. Many associate the advent of natural gas with the problems of conversion. This is probably the biggest single conversion operation which has ever been undertaken. Inevitably there will be a number of difficulties, and there has been. But, in spite of the undoubted hardship which some individuals have experienced, on the whole it is fair to say that the operation has been carried out with great competence. Considerable efforts are still being made, and will continue to be made, by area boards and contractors alike to minimise the disruption inseparable from an operation of this magnitude and complexity.
So far just over 2 million domestic consumers—that is, 15 per cent. of the total—have had their conversions completed. Conversion of existing appliances cost about £50 million last year. It is planned that this will rise this year, due to the increased rate of conversion work, and it will run at approximately £80 million a year over the period to 1973.
Undoubtedly it has caused considerable upheaval and much inconvenience. Some people have been concerned about the safety aspects of natural gas. As hon. Members will recollect, the then Paymaster-General, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), caused an inquiry to be made into the safety of natural gas as a fuel and invited Professor Morton of Manchester University to conduct this inquiry. Professor Morton has just completed his inquiry and presented his report. I was able to look at it for the first time last night. I can say that it is generally favourable to the safety of natural gas as a fuel. It is obviously a carefully prepared report, and I hope that hon. Members will understand that I should like to reserve my detailed comments until I have had time to give it proper study.
Some hon. Members may ask whether all this great operation of converting to natural gas is worth while. I can best answer that question in two ways. First, the benefits were evaluated in 1967. It was estimated then that the present value of the net benefit would be about £300 million over the ten-year period 1968–78.
These savings have recently been recalculated on the basis of current costs as well as forecasts of rates of conversion, and using the present test discount rate of 10 per cent. compared with the 8 per cent. rate used in 1967. The net benefits are still expected to be about the same.
Secondly, there is a great benefit to the balance of payments. The increasing use of North Sea gas is of benefit to our balance of payments, first because most of the North Sea gas at present being used is used in the displacement of oil at the reforming plants for making town gas. Its sale for direct use by industry is almost mostly in place of oil. The net foreign exchange saving from these sources is already appreciable and is estimated to rise to about £100 million a year by 1975. The cost of conversion is nonetheless considerable.
The original estimate of £400 million provided for the conversion of the 1966 total of 12·8 million domestic and smaller commercial and industrial consumers. Since then extra costs such as labour and materials have added about £50 million to the figure. New customers and a change in the arrangements by which conversion costs of large industrial and commercial customers are to be met add a further £80 million to the original estimate, increasing it in all from £400 million to £530 million. There is a need to try to keep a balance between the cost and rate of absorption and the economic incentive to further exploration.
I am glad to say that the search for gas goes on. The full extent of the reserves in the United Kingdom or the Continental Shelf is not yet known. Already the 1967 figure of proved reserves, put then at 25 trillion cubic feet, has increased to 29 trillion cubic feet. I thought that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) would be interested in that figure. The largest and most promising structures have naturally been drilled first, but there are many other areas which have proved fruitful.
It is highly unlikely that there will be no more finds. There is certainly enough gas to enable the industry to meet its objective of 4,000 million cubic feet per day by the middle of this decade. Hon. Members can be assured that, whatever

the results of future exploration, all this expenditure and effort will not have been wasted. There is no question of this country, having equipped itself to use gas of a high calorific value, being converted back to town gas. Meanwhile the industry's plan to provide an integrated gas system by the middle of the 1970s must be financed. It will continue to need substantial amounts of capital for investment in fixed assets. It also needs additional capital to finance the costs of conversion and other activities.
The industry has so far raised over £100 million from its own resources, representing 7 per cent. of its requirements. It borrows varying amounts from banks: in 1969–70 it was £18 million, and this year £13·6 million. It has already borrowed abroad about £32 million in DM, but the bulk of its borrowings, which in recent years have been mainly for capital expenditure, comes through the National Loans Fund. Its forecast requirements are just over £2,000 million by 1973. Since the gas industry has to pay nearly 10 per cent. for its money, it is encouraged to examine closely the need to spend it. Boards are also becoming increasingly cost-conscious and are seeking savings without reducing their standards of service to the public.
As hon. Members know, the National Board for Prices and Incomes has recently been investigating the industry. This is the fifth reference concerning the industry since March, 1967. It is not surprising that it is feeling a little punch drunk. I hope that we shall be able to spare it a few punches in future. I hope to have the report of the board by the end of this month, and we will then see immediately to its printing and publication.
The House will wish to consider the financial results of the industry as a whole and the prospects for the future. For the five-year period to 1966–67, the industry was only 0·4 per cent. below its objective of an average gross return of 10·2 per cent. on net assets employed. In 1967–68—that was the year of the Middle East war and devaluation—it went into deficit and its gross rate of return fell to 7·7 per cent. In 1968–69 gas sales picked up and gas prices were increased. The industry then earned a record surplus of £17·5 million, representing a gross return of 10·9 per cent. on average net assets.
Provisional figures for 1969–70—that is, the first year of the new financial requirement to earn a net return of 7 per cent.—indicate a net return of 6·4 per cent. earned. Immediately ahead, the financial results of the industry obviously depend on the movement both of costs and prices. Clearly, this will also govern the extent to which it can increasingly finance its own capital requirements.
Meanwhile, I have no doubt that the development programme should continue broadly as planned. Natural gas has come to stay. Further investment in the industry is needed. I invite the House to approve the Order.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. Alan Williams: I welcome the opportunity to be discussing the gas industry yet again with the hon. Gentleman the Minister of State. When he referred to the biggest single conversion operation ever undertaken, I thought that he was referring to himself and the Parliamentary Secretary. It is poetic justice that I should perhaps, with other hon. Members, be delaying him here at this time in view of the 25 sittings which he and his hon. Friends imposed on me when I was trying to steer the Gas Bill through Committee. I was glad to hear from his speech tonight that all my efforts then were far from wasted. I was delighted to note how many views which he then found questionable, deplorable or unacceptable have now become part of the standard Conservative philosophy. It re-establishes the confidence of many of us in the processes of this House. It was a hard haul, but a worth-while haul. I look with some trepidation at the Parliamentary Secretary, who will be winding up the debate, because he does not believe in the same educative processes and he may, therefore, not have the same benevolent view of the needs of the industry.
This is an Order which we on this side of the House, had we remained in government, would have brought forward. It was anticipated in 1968 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), who was then the Minister, set the present absolute ceiling of £2,400 million but also imposed the interim ceiling of £1,600 million. He said that he hoped that in moving from the interim to the absolute ceiling the House

would be given the opportunity of maximum scrutiny of the industry. I am therefore glad that the hon. Gentleman has seen fit to approach the absolute ceiling not in one great leap but more casually. On the other hand, I could wish that it had been an even more casual approach.
I did some arithmetic during the brief spell when the hon. Gentleman was speaking. He referred to the expenditure being about £200 million a year. It is intriguing—I am delighted at the conversion—that we are here authorising the biggest-ever increase in the borrowing powers for this industry, bigger than we gave on the last occasion or, prior to that, in 1965. On the basis of £200 million a year, the House may well be denied the opportunity of scrutinising the expenditure of this industry for two and a half years.
I recognise, as the hon. Gentleman said, that it is not predictable how much will be spent in any given year, but I hope that when his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary replies, he will intimate when he envisages that the next Order may be required. I suggest that if it is anything beyond a year from now, it will be an unsatisfactory answer. It is imperative that we should have an annual scrutiny of expenditure programmes of this magnitude by the nationalised industries.
On an earlier Order tonight on which I spoke briefly, I was pleased to hear the Minister of State, Treasury indicate his support for annual scrutiny. I hoped that we would be assured that annual scrutiny would be guaranteed for this industry. Having heard the figures from the hon. Gentleman, however, I have great doubts.
I therefore put forward four reasons why I think that annual scrutiny at this stage is imperative. The gas industry is going through a singularly dynamic change in its industrial structure and its investment programme. In the Gas Bill Committee I indicated three areas of a converging dynamic in the activities of this industry. On the exploitation side, I indicated that there was to be a five to six-year build-up in exploitation of natural gas. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he still believes, as we then did, that 4,000 million cu. ft. a day by the mid-1970s is attainable. I am convinced that this is correct. That,


however, is a five to six-year build-up that we are envisaging in exploitation.
On conversion, while the programme is for 10 years the peak will be in the next two to three years. That is another major increase in the rate of advance and the rate of change in the industry. Thirdly, by the mid-1970s consumption will be trebled compared with 1968.
Thus, on exploitation, conversion and consumption, exceptionally rapid rates of change are envisaged. At a time of such dynamic change, it is imperative that the House should have maximum opportunity to scrutinise the way in which that change takes place, because substantial sums of money are involved. That is my first argument in support of an annual opportunity to scrutinise the expenditure and the borrowing powers of the industry.
The second factor—and possibly I may have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies—is that, while the hon. Gentleman may tell me that we gave two years between the last opportunity for scrutiny and this occasion, between the Gas and Electricity Act, 1968, and tonight's Order, we knew at that stage that we should be introducing the Gas Bill, which gave a marathon opportunity for investigation of the industry. Are we, therefore, to have another Gas Bill during this intervening period to afford us an equal opportunity to discuss the development of the industry in depth? If not, then again it becomes imperative that we have the opportunity to discuss the financial programme.
The third factor in support of an annual scrutiny is that when we were the Government not only were there the normal scrutiny opportunities in the House and Select Committee opportunities but there were the opportunities presented for public scrutiny by the Prices and Incomes Board, and the hon. Gentleman has already said that he hopes that in future the industry will be spared punches from the P.I.B. This, at this stage, I would suggest, is not necessarily a proposition with which the industry would go along, because while I am sure it would be only too happy to be spared what the hon. Gentleman described as the "punches" of the P.I.B., at least they were impartial interventions, impartial punches; and there have been indications from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen from the Despatch Box in the last week

or so that in place of the P.I.B. they intend to substitute the partial intervention, the biased intervention, of Conservative Ministers, instead of the board. I have a feeling that the industry, while it may be glad to feel that possibly it may not have to face the detailed scrutiny of the P.I.B., may have considerable reservations about the degree of impartiality with which its operations will be investigated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. But if the P.I.B. is to be abolished—and as yet we do not know, though there were firm indications in what the hon. Gentleman said that there is to be a reduction in outside scrutiny of the industry—then it becomes again more imperative that this House should be given extra opportunities to carry out scrutiny.
The final factor in support of annual scrutiny is that if, as the Government have intimated, it is their intention to hold back prices in the public sector, then it is absolutely essential that the opportunities should be given to this House to check the impact on the viability of the industry of these politically motivated interventions in its commercial practice, and, in particular, to ensure that its ability to carry out investment is not impaired to the point at which it will not be able to compete effectively, particularly with the oil industry.
So I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance either that there is to be a Gas Bill between this debate and the next bringing forward of an Order, or that we shall have full opportunity to debate in this House any interventions which he or his right hon. Friend may undertake into the pricing mechanism as it applies to this industry.
This Order is, after all, our first chance to explore in depth the present Government's thinking in relation to the gas industry. The hon. Gentleman made reference to the borrowing abroad by the nationalised industries. I am sure the House would be interested, and I can see that some of his hon. Friends would be interested, to know how far the Government intend to encourage or to discourage such borrowing abroad, by all the nationalised industries—though this now is not the opportunity to pursue that—but I hope we may have an indication


of the Government's thinking on that in relation to this Borrowing Powers Order.
Equally we need to know, in view of its impact on investment decisions in the industry, whether or not the Government accept our fuel White Paper or whether they envisage a new one. Are they contemplating a new White Paper in relation to fuel? This is of critical importance in relation to the investment programme of all the industries, especially this one. If they are envisaging a new White Paper, is it to be soon? If it is not to be soon, this will create major uncertainty within the industry. I am sure the Government do not want to create that sort of uncertainty for major investment.
In this context I was interested to see in The Times yesterday the news of a contract for conversion of Hams Hall to natural gas. I shall not comment on the actual project, for obvious reasons. Do the Government envisage any change in policy on the conversion of coal-fired power stations to natural gas? We need to know this in assessing the future demand for this fuel. Will the Minister explain the thinking behind the reduced period of the contract involved in this conversion? Is it to absorb current surpluses of natural gas while at the same time enabling the industry in five years' time to look for higher price customers elsewhere? This may well be the case. If so, I urge the Minister to beware of the consequences of converting what could be long-term coal user power stations to short-term gas supply. I suspect that his could be used as a steppingstone to future oil conversions in the electricity industry.
In another sector in the next few years the Gas Council will be operating as an exploration company on the Continental Shelf. It is essential that we and the industry should know whether it is the Government's intention to limit this exploration activity. What expenditure on exploration is envisaged during the next few years? Will the industry be allowed to search for oil, bearing in mind the difficulty of trying to stop it obtaining oil when it is looking for gas because of the structural similarities? This is important in view of the debate on the introduction of the Gas Bill. The Labour Government did everything they could to encourage both aspects of exploration,

and we need to know whether the Conservative Government intend to give that same encouragement.
In particular we—and the public, because their money is involved—need to know whether, in the event of oil being found, the same commercial freedom will be given to the Gas Council as is given to any other operator in the North Sea or on the Continental Shelf to exploit that oil to its full economic potential. The Gas Council would be taking the same risk as other companies, and it must have the same right and the same freedom to exploit any success it achieves from those searches. There must be no arbitrary or doctrinally motivated limitation of the commercial practices of the industry. We heard earlier this evening that the Government of the day wanted to see the industry put on a proper commercial basis. Let them tell us tonight that they intend to see these exploration activities in the North Sea put on a proper commercial basis.
Will the Government, therefore, reintroduce the old Clause 2 of the Gas Bill? I need not spell out the Clause. Every word and every comma are engraved in our memories, and it would not be proper at this time of night for us to engrave them in anyone else's. As an ex-lecturer, I have an enthusiasm for education and I am quite willing to do so, but I am delighted to see that hon. Gentlemen are all familiar with the old Clause 2. If the Clause is not to be reintroduced, how can the industry operate commercially, as hon. Gentlemen have said they want the industry to do, in relation to its exploration activities? What would be the effect of failing to reintroduce the Clause in the event of a joint find by a joint exploration activity not of gas but of oil?
Switching to another aspect of the industry and its finances, the Minister has decided to keep certain gasworks open during the next twelve months to improve the supply of smokeless fuel, and I agree with him completely on this. Will he tell the House how he justifies making the gas consumer bear part of the cost of these supplies of smokeless fuel? I do not say that there should not be some form of subsidy, but how can the hon. Gentleman justify the gas customer subsidising the solid smokeless fuel consumer, which I understand he envisages


in part since the gas industry will be meeting part of the cost of keeping open uneconomic units?
Before approving a further £500 million in borrowing powers, the House should recognise that for the investment to be efficient there must be a change in the structure of the industry. I revert to a point which I put to the hon. Gentleman earlier, and I hope that we shall have an answer. Does he intend to bring forward a Bill to deal with the structural inadequacies of the industry and, if so, when?
The House will know that the present federal structure of the industry was arrived at as an attempt to improve on a structure consisting of over a thousand manufacturing units and a series of local distribution networks. Now that we have a single source of supply, we are moving towards a non-manufactured form of gas and a national distribution system. To optimise the benefit not only of the reserves but of the investment that we are authorising and the borrowing that we are authorising during this dynamic phase, there must be some central strategic control of the planning of the industry. Investment policy and priorities must be decided at the centre. Pricing policy, consequentially, must also be decided at the centre, and, therefore, it is equally appropriate that the financial duties imposed on the industry should be borne at the centre. We cannot rob the areas of many of their sectors of authority and still leave them with responsibilities for the financial objectives of the industry.
Similarly, will the hon. Gentleman bring forward legislation to remove the limitations of Section 53 (6) of the 1948 Act on undue preference? The hon. Gentleman knows these well; it is just that the name is slightly different. These again we debated at length, and I believe that there was quite a degree of understanding and acceptance of the need to remove these limitations. But the industry needs to be told whether it is now the intention to reintroduce legislation with this objective. If that is not done, the industry will not be able to exploit fully the benefits of the investment that the House has authorised. It will not be able to compete with the practices of the oil industry in the bulk market. It would

be to the benefit of the whole range of consumers, including domestic consumers, if these 1948 limitations were removed. In a capital-intensive industry, that would enable the high overheads to be spread more widely.
I congratulate the industry on the unique rate of introduction of natural gas. It is astonishing that it is only just over four years since the first find was made in our sector of the North Sea. In this context, I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman's first reactions to the inquiry which we set up into the safety of natural gas. It will go a long way to clearing obstacles to the full utilisation and realising the full potential of this remarkable new fuel.
The large sum of money which I hope that we shall be authorising is one of unique proportions for this industry, and it is right that this House and the industry should be given the answers to all the questions that I have asked. Before deciding whether we can support the Order, we shall listen very closely to the hon. Gentleman's answers.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman when he indicates that there should be an annual review to see how it goes, particularly in view of the fact that my hon. Friend may not be introducing a Bill immediately.
One thing I have looked for carefully is this: not a word has been said by anybody tonight on price. The cost of gas is 23d. per therm. Buying it from the North Sea producers costs 2·87d. and a lot of oil is used as well, but we have not been told by either speaker what it to be done on price. Every customer wants to know whether moving into a dynamic age will see some reflection in price. So far there has been none.
This industry has had examples in Holland, West Germany, Canada and the United States of how to convert to natural gas, but so far in Bedfordshire, my own area, we have had a great number of problems which have accumulated in dealing with conversions. Fitters have been arriving and going away, forgetting what they should have done. These troubles have been repeated, and I hope that the Eastern Gas Board, its officers, staff and sub-contractors will be much


more responsible in future about the demands of the public, demands which they have every right to make.
It was mentioned by the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) that he would like to see some structural alterations. We can agree that structural alterations would be most desirable. I have noticed in a little publication by the gas industry these words appear:
The change from a manufacturing based industry to a transmission and distribution based industry follows from the introduction of natural gas.
So far, we agree, but is it not advisable to see that this industry is maintained on a transmission distribution basis and is taken clean out of exploration and production?
We are talking about big figures in raising the borrowing limits to £2,100 million. These are the big spenders. Would it not be better to hand over to private enterprise and let them raise the money in the usual way, as it is done in other countries, and not via the taxpayer?
There are ample precedents for this. If one takes the case of Holland, the O.S.M. has admittedly got a stake of 40 per cent. investment in Gasunie: the State has 10 per cent. and private enterprise the balance. In Belgium, in Distrigaz the State has an interest in conjunction with private enterprise. In West Germany, on the production side it is almost entirely private enterprise, while transmission is left largely to the oil companies and coal interests. It might be not simply unique but advantageous to the taxpayer if some way is found of reducing his liability.
The nationalised industries in the past years have been instrumental in building up large requirements of capital which have been spent like water running into the sand. We are told they are cost-conscious, but we find no real indication of this. Return on capital invested is still remarkably low.
They have one or two advantages. I find from the accounts that in 1967–68 the gas industry was paying 6·9 per cent. on average for the money it raised, and in 1968–69, on £240 million, interest rates advanced from 7⅜ per cent. to 8⅜ per cent. This may be high. I am not disputing that. Interest rates are high in the

United Kingdom, but if the industries went to the open market, I dare say they would pay a substantially larger figure. Are they therefore not receiving a considerable subsidy which private enterprise does not get?
I accept that if the industry raised money in the Federal Republic it would get it at 6 per cent. That would be advantageous, and I recommend this course.
It may be argued that the private enterprise companies have the benefit of investment grants. This indeed they have. On the other hand, a Board of Trade handbook indicates that nationalised industries do not receive them. But this is not strictly true. If they work in partnership and set up a commercial subsidiary they do. The Gas Council has done this. Where it works alone it operates under the heading of Hydrocarbons (Great Britain) Ltd. and when it operates in partnership it comes under the august name Gas Council (Exploration) Ltd. Under this guise it can thus obtain cash grants. If it works under the general umbrella of a commercial enterprise, it can have all these advantages as well. The hon. Member for Swansea, West suggested that it should not be discriminated against. But it is given a preferential position.
Why should the Gas Council be engaged in exploration when it is a monopolistic buyer? Everywhere in the world, so far as I understand, the buyers pay the market price—a willing seller and a willing buyer. Here it is virtually a dictated price, because there is only one buyer under the Continental Shelf Act, 1964. It would be most advantageous if there was a truely negotiated price, a price which could easily be fixed by the law of supply and demand.
With the abundance of natural gas which is becoming available—the reserves are now 29 trillion cubic feet—prices will tend to fall. Prices have already been falling in Western Europe. I should think that this was the simplest way of reaching the correct price.
I do not think that 2·87d. per therm, or the most recent deal with British Petroleum of 2·9d. per therm, is realistic enough to persuade private operators to move on to the Shelf to locate more gas, which is urgently required.
I will leave those points and move on to one or two other matters which have arisen. It is late and it might be important to curtail my remarks. But let us bear in mind that we are dealing with £2,100 million, which is not a small sum. This is the only opportunity that we shall have of debating this matter this year; this is the only opportunity that we shall have before the recess. It may be suggested that this should go through on the nod, but I would not be prepared to concede this.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Skeet: I am glad to find hon. Gentlemen opposite giving me some support in this, even though they would not support ideas of wresting control from State agencies on the Shelf and handing it over to the agencies of private enterprise which can do the job so much better.
I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that while the industry was right to shut down its carbonisation plants, through lack of collaboration with the National Coal Board the industry has got itself into a delicate situation with the steel industry and domestic consumers. We have a fuel crisis of the first magnitude. This could have been foreseen three or four years ago, but no steps were taken to avert it. We have now got ourselves into the ridiculous situation whereby we are exporting to France and receiving the processed material back here for our consumers to buy. However, I must concede that it is possibly the only thing that we can do in the circumstances.
I welcome the suggestion that one or two uneconomic carbonisation plants must be kept operating for the time being. I hope that the Minister will also watch the market for liquid natural gas. The price is tending to fall since we negotiated the contract with Algeria many years ago. It may be that in future years more advantageous prices will be available.
I hope we shall be given information, if it is available, about the Ekofisk, an area of advantage where a well has recently been discovered on the Norwegian side of the median line. This will probably make vast supplies of natural gas available to the United Kingdom; that is, if the Gas Council is able to buy it.
In my view, the chemical industry should have the right to buy not merely its chemical feedstock directly from suppliers on the Continental Shelf, but also any fuel it requires for its own steam raising. This would get rid of the middleman and probably do a lot to bring down the industry's costs.
I fully back the contention about converting one power station, Hams Hall, in Birmingham, to dual firing. There is, however, a difficulty. Gas is a premium fuel and there might be a tendency, particularly in the early days, to over-sell, so creating a major problem. I hope that this power station does not experience the fate of another plant in Birmingham some years ago. The authorities then tried to use low-grade coal for making gas and the plant had to be shut down as uneconomic. That was a failure. I am certain that on this occasion the project will be a success.
I welcome the progress that the Gas Council and the area boards have made generally. This is a great industry with a great future. However, if the industry goes on spending as it is now, parliamentary checks will be necessary, and prices will have to be watched. I do not put much by the Prices and Incomes Board in this context. That will go, with the result that, in the end, the checks will have to be made here in this House, and not through consumer councils. Or perhaps the market forces will settle the matter. However, market forces cannot operate when there is a sole monopoly. Ultimately, we might get a few conversions on the bench opposite. Perhaps even a few hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept that competition can have advantageous results.

12.43 a.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: Although the hour is late, I would not have missed the speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) for anything, bearing in mind the trials and tribulations of former weeks and months.
Instead of 25 sittings on one Bill, I formed the impression that he wanted 25 separate Bills. When he talked about not wanting an industry that was doctrinally motivated, I reckoned that his conversion was total. Meanwhile, it is important that we have an annual examination of expenditure and borrowing


powers, and I hope that these occasions will continue at regular intervals.
Did I understand the Minister to say that the borrowings which we are envisaging will be at the rate of 10 per cent. from the National Loans Fund? My hon. Friend quoted so many statistics that it was difficult to sort one from the other. If this is the case, and I welcome it, it means that at long last we are having borrowings at something approaching the market rate.
My hon. Friend referred to the publication of the P.I.B. report on the gas industry. Since this will not be the first such report—indeed, I believe it will be the fifth—could it be published along with the views of the Government and the gas industry, rather than allowing the whole matter to be presented in a less than clear state?
It is customary when talking about the Continental Shelf to use the area as a blanket phrase for both the North Sea and the Irish Sea. I wonder whether any of this money for which borrowing power is being granted to the gas industry will be used on ventures in the Irish Sea. In winding up, could my hon. Friend give some idea of the progress made in explorations for natural gas off the coast of Lancashire and North Wales?

12.45 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): There are some questions I think I should deal with in reply to the debate. The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) seemed to think that the long sittings in Committee on the previous Gas Bill had not been wasted. I assure him that is so. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has come refreshed from that exercise full of ideas into the Ministry. There will be all sorts of signs of these ideas appearing in due course as a result of his discovering the errors of the ways of the hon. Member.
It is, of course, a little soon for me to tell the House exactly to what conclusions my hon. Friend has come. When the hon. Member asked many wide questions concerning the future of the gas industry, nationalised industries' financing and Continental Shelf activities, I am sure he did not expect me to give detailed

answers, because these matters are very much under consideration.

Mr. Alan Williams: I fully accept that it may not be possible on the spur of the moment to answer all these detailed points, but that is all the more reason for the hon. Gentleman to give the assurance, for which I asked, that we shall have the opportunity of debating the gas industry within the next 12 months. I would be quite happy if he could give that assurance.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member anticipates me. I was about to deal with that aspect of his speech. He said that this is the biggest ever increase in borrowing powers of the industry and that it is designed to last for a longer time than ever before. His right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) said in June, 1968, when increased borrowing powers became necessary, that he would seek an amount sufficient to last for three years. That was very much longer than this Order is sought to last. It should last probably to the beginning of 1973. The Gas Council, in its booklet, confirmed that then it expects to have to come to the House for further powers. This was not the practice of the past Government, but a rather shorter period.
The hon. Member is a glutton for punishment. He has just finished 24 Sittings on the Gas Bill. What more does he want? He could have a Supply Day at any time to debate the gas industry, or he and his hon. Friends could put down Questions. I should have thought that ample opportunity for hon. Members to debate the industry whenever they want. The idea that the Government should provide a regular day for every nationalised industry to be debated after the spate of nationalisation such as we have had would pre-empt most other subjects from being discussed. I suggest that he should exercise his right to choose a Supply Day for the purpose.

Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Gentleman has denied the idea of an annual scrutiny. For that reason I suggest that this is an occasion for a scrutiny and that he should give answers to the questions I put to him. He should do so in courtesy to me.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. I have suggested that


an annual debate would not be particularly appropriate for any industry. I come now to the rather different question of scrutiny. Nobody could claim that this debate was scrutiny of the gas industry. Many questions have been asked, but they have not been related to the very complex reasons which lie behind this huge investment. There have been the inquiries of the National Board for Prices and Incomes and of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. There is continuing Government scrutiny and much public comment on the industry.
The hon. Gentleman must ask himself whether he thinks it is right that there should be further bodies—or, indeed whether that number of bodies should continue—to examine this one industry. He will find on checking with the Gas Council that it would be very relieved if it did not have to subject itself to inquiry by the National Board for Prices and Incomes in the future. I do not believe that it is right that there should be annual scrutinies by further bodies. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, he can always call for a debate by the usual procedures.
The previous Government made arrangements for the terms of the contract in relation to Hams Hall to be switched from one type of fuel to another. I am satisfied that the arrangement that they came to ensured that the position of the coal industry is not prejudiced by those terms. The precise terms are confidential to the two industries concerned, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that whichever way it goes in the future the coal industry has not suffered. I believe that should be the model for any further arrangements of that sort.
The Gas Council is rightly contributing to easing a national shortage of smokeless fuels. We have inherited a difficult position. By keeping open some of its gasworks, the Gas Council is playing a useful part in meeting the possible shortfall which can be expected this coming winter if things do not go too well. It is only fair that everybody concerned in this shortage—the National Coal Board, the Gas Board, and the Government—should contribute. That is the arrangement which my hon. Friend announced in an answer today.

Mr. Alan Williams: In that case, what contribution will the hon. Gentleman be receiving from the private producers of smokeless fuel?

Mr. Ridley: Everybody is trying to increase their production. This may well not be economic because the shortage cannot continue for a long time.

Mr. Williams: It was the financial contribution we were talking about.

Mr. Ridley: To increase plant beyond perhaps what one's own forecasts suggest to be wise can be a greater financial contribution than the hon. Gentleman realises.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) was not quite fair on the question of the price of gas. In many cases the price has reduced. This applies mainly to large industrial consumers. There is what is called the gold star tariff available to many consumers, if they opt for it, at 15d. a therm, which is a great improvement on what would have happened—

Mr. Skeet: I understand that the contract with I.C.I. is for 4d. a therm or thereabouts. At the same time the consumer is paying the bulk of the price. Is he to have any reduction over the years?

Mr. Ridley: I think my hon. Friend would be the first to recognise that it is economies of scale which determine pricing policy. If large consumers can take gas much more cheaply, that is strictly in accordance with the economics of the matter. That is all that I have claimed. On the other hand, I do not think my hon. Friend can say that there have not been price reductions as a result of what I have said.
I should like now to deal with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder). The Government have not charged the industry 10 per cent. on money which it borrowed, but they have set a 10 per cent. test discount rate for new investment. The cost of borrowing is just under 10 per cent., which is the Government's going rate for new borrowing. My hon. Friend will publish the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and he will also publish his own views on the report as soon as he has formulated them.
My hon. Friend asked about drilling in the Irish Sea. I do not have much information to give him. The extent of the Gas Council's exploration operations on the Continental Shelf as a whole is quite small—only £19 million in total so far. That is also the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have tried to lead me into discussing the future structure of the industry, whether it should search for oil, the question of undue preferences in prices, and all sorts of matters which I should be only too pleased to discuss but on another occasion. We have had quite a lot of gas today in the House of Commons. The hour is late, and I think that those matters go well beyond the Order before the House, the purpose of which is to increase the borrowing limits for the immediate tasks in hand by the Gas Council. These tasks were set by the hon. Gentleman's Government and, as he said, he would have laid the Order had it not been for the change of Government. I commend the Order to the House.

Mr. Alan Williams: Before the Minister sits down, may I raise one matter with him? The hon. Gentleman said that the Order is necessary to enable the Gas Council to fulfil the tasks which we set the industry, but to fulfil those tasks we proposed certain structural changes. These were implicit in the Gas Bill. We were giving powers in relation to oil. This was part of the programme which necessitated an increase of £500 million in borrowing powers. The hon. Gentleman has failed dismally to answer the points put to him. Equally, he has failed dismally to answer my question. The hon. Gentleman said that everyone was contributing to the loss which will be incurred in obtaining this extra smokeless fuel. Does "everyone" include private smokeless fuel producers, or does it mean only the nationalised fuel sector?

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it is straining your natural courtesy a great deal to allow the Minister to reflect so badly on the Chair by his comment that certain things mentioned by my hon. Friend and by other hon. Members were out of order? Surely that is wrong of the hon. Gentleman?

Unless you feel that those matters were out of order, the hon. Gentleman has no right to make such a comment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not take it that way. I did not notice anything particularly offensive to the Chair. The hon. Member often sat under my chairmanship upstairs, and he knows that I would have called the Minister to order if I had noticed anything wrong. I did not really notice anything of the kind.
The Question is—

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to put the Question before the Minister has completed his speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is in order if no hon. Member rises to speak. The Minister did not rise. If he wishes to do so now, I shall call him again.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.

HOUSING SUBSIDIES (INTEREST RATES)

1.0 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move,
That the Housing Subsidies (Representative Rates of Interest) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to consider at the same time the Motion relating to Scotland,
That the Housing Subsidies (Representative Rates of Interest) (Scotland) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.

Mr. Channon: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These Orders arise under the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967, for England and Wales and the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1968. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will deal with any Scottish points which may arise during the debate.
During the course of today I have sometimes regretted the success I had in Standing Committee on the Housing Subsidies Bill when I managed to persuade the then Government to make this an


Order subject to affirmative Resolution. None the less, these important matters should be debated.
The Acts provide for Orders to be presented to the House annually specifying the representative rates of interest on which basic subsidy is to be calculated for each dwelling completed during the year. The basic subsidy accounts for much the largest part of the subsidies payable under the current Acts for dwellings completed. There are also supplementary subsidies, which are not affected by these Orders, into which I shall not go now. Similar Orders were approved by the House in the previous Parliament on three occasions. They are of great importance to the recipient authorities as authorities cannot calculate the amount of basic subsidy which they will receive for 1970–71 until the representative interest rates are determined.
The formula laid down provides, in effect, that the basic subsidies shall represent the difference between the loan charges on the aggregate approved cost of dwellings in each financial year at the representative borrowing rate and the loan charges which would have been incurred at a fixed borrowing rate of 4 per cent. The rate must be representative of the interest rates paid on loans raised by recipient authorities in the financial year immediately preceding that in which the dwellings are completed. I remember well the considerable discussion, in which my hon. Friend the Member for North-ants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) took part, during the passage of the Housing Subsidies Bill about the method of calculating this rate. There were two main reasons for basing the representative rate on interest rates in the year preceding completion. I am sure that hon. Members recall the arguments at that time.
As required by the Acts, the recipient authorities or their representative bodies have been consulted about the method of calculating the representative rates and about the rates themselves. They have accepted both.
As in previous years, because of the different patterns of borrowing, separate rates have been specified for local authorities and housing associations, on the one hand, and the new town development corporations and the Commission for the New Towns on the other.
Local authority borrowing is a complex mixture of short-term and long-term borrowing. Complicated calculations based on extensive financial data are, therefore, needed to arrive at the representative rate. Copies of memoranda explaining the method of calculation adopted for England and Wales and for Scotland have been placed in the Library of the House.
My right hon. Friend has considered whether there should be a separate rate for housing associations, but so far no evidence has been supplied by the representative bodies of the housing associations in support of a separate rate. So my right hon. Friend has concluded that it would be reasonable to use the local authority rate as in previous years.
For new towns a separate rate is necessary since they are wholly financed from one source, that is, Government loans carrying interest at the Government lending rate. As previously, this year's rate has been calculated by reference to the weighted average rate charged on borrowings during the year 1969–70. The resulting rates in England and Wales are 9·23 per cent. for local authorities and housing associations and 9·03 per cent. for new towns, as against last year's rates of 7·93 per cent. and 8·21 per cent. respectively.
The Scottish rates vary slightly. They are 9·29 per cent. for local authorities and housing associations and 9·02 per cent. for new towns. The slight difference is due to the different patterns of borrowing. In addition, there is a third rate of 8·84 per cent. for the Scottish Special Housing Association, which has no counterpart in England and Wales.
The House will wish to know what these rates mean in terms of subsidy payments. As an example, a typical local authority house would this year attract a basic subsidy of £202 a year in England and Wales. The comparable figure for last year was £148 a year.
The cost towards which the subsidy is payable in the all-in cost of dwellings, including erection and such items as land, roads, sewers and professional fees or salaries. The cost yardsticks, which set the upper limit to which erection costs may count for subsidy, have been reviewed and increased in England and Wales with effect from 15th April this year. This will in due course be reflected in the subsidy paid for houses completed.
The provisional estimate of expenditure in Great Britain on the 1967 Act subsidies in 1969–70, including supplementary subsidies, is £57 million, of which £10 million is in Scotland. The estimate for 1970–71, including supplementary subsidies, is £100 million, of which £19 million applies to Scotland, an increase of £43 million, or over 75 per cent. This is partially due to the extraordinary and unprecedented levels of interest rates in the previous year.
The total cost of Exchequer housing subsidies under the current and previous Acts is expected to be £207 million in 1970–71. Rather under half of this total arises from 1967 Act subsidies and rather over half from subsidies payable under earlier legislation. This total compares with £163 million in 1969–70.
It has frequently been pointed out that there are various defects in this subsidy. One is that it may not permit local authorities to borrow at a 4 per cent. rate of interest. At a time of rising interest rates the fact that the representative rate is based on the previous year's borrowing rates means that it does not fully reflect the current year's borrowing rates if they are higher. This situation is much less likely to arise in 1970–71. Borrowing rates in 1969–70 were very high, and as a result the representative rate for 1970–71 is higher than the borrowing rate has been for much of this year so far. If it does, local authorities will gain this year on the swings some of what they lost in previous years on the roundabouts. I hope that local authorities which are pressing ahead with necessary building programmes will in particular note that.
There are other difficulties arising from the refinancing of maturing debt, which on another occasion I should have dwelt on at some length, but perhaps the House will forgive me for not doing so tonight.
I imagine that discussion on the whole system of housing subsidies would be out of order tonight. But I must stress that in asking the House to approve the Order we are only asking it to approve the rate of basic subsidy for dwellings completed in this financial year. We are not asking it to endorse the present subsidy system. Indeed, we are committed to refashioning the subsidy system to give most help to those local authorities and individuals

who most need it, and that is what we shall do when we have worked out our plans and consulted the local authority associations. The House will not expect me to go further this evening. This will require a great deal of work and consultation.
Tonight I hope that the House will pass the Order so as to enable the representative rate of interest to be fixed.

1.7 a.m.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: It is my pleasant duty to offer my congratulations to the Parliamentary Secretary. Although we have crossed swords once at Question Time since the change of Government, this is the first occasion on which I can properly congratulate him on his appointment. I wish him well in what I know is a very difficult task. I do not wish him long tenure of his office, of course. There will be occasions when we shall be rather abrasive with one another, but I believe that we shall never be led to be personally abrasive. I have a personal regard for the hon. Gentleman, and, apart from basic policy differences, I shall be glad to co-operate in trying to tackle the housing problems in all their complexity that fact our urban areas and that people living in them. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's appointment and congratulate him.
The Orders with which we are dealing must be welcomed by my side of the House. They were in preparation under the previous Government. I do not propose to emulate the Parliamentary Secretary's hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), now Minister of State, who, when on this side of the House, used to make a practice of explaining the Government's own Orders, usually at somewhat greater length than the Minister presenting them to the House.
I should like to take the opportunity to put one or two relevant questions, to put the background to some of the hon. Gentleman's observations. I have no questions or comments on the details of the order because, as I have said, it was in preparation by the Labour Government.
Whatever the future may be, in welcoming the Order it is right to say that the legislation under which it is made


has proved itself in local government housing efforts. But what of some of the criticisms which the Conservatives have made and to which the hon. Gentleman referred only fleetingly tonight? Those criticisms have been made when the House has discussed Orders virtually identical with this and different only in respect of the amounts involved.
There have been three main criticisms. It has been argued that the average representative rate of interest was unfair to local authorities borrowing at above that rate. It has been argued that the previous average representative rate was an unfair figure to take. It has been said that there should be a subsidy for people instead of local authority house building. Already I have detected some changes in the phraseology used about this subject by the Conservatives. Those are the criticisms which used to be made when the Labour Government made such Orders. Perhaps we shall hear something of them tonight.
I do not suggest that a housing subsidy system at any one point in time is immutable. When there is a changing situation nationally, regionally and locally, one must be prepared to review the ways in which one is achieving one's objectives and be prepared to consider the use of other financial methods of tackling the problems. For this reason, a housing finance review was put in hand by the last Government. The present Government have inherited it, and can improve the effectiveness of the investment and subsidy for dealing with the housing problem. As there has been much talk of a review by Conservative spokesmen, including the Minister himself and the hon. Gentleman, one would have thought that tonight there would have been at least some indication of what the future might hold for us.
Is this to be the last Order of its kind? This is an important question, not lust from a parliamentary point of view, because of the differences across the House, but for the many hundreds and thousands of people, both elected and officers, who are involved in local government housing. We are entitled to some indication, if not the detail, of future thinking.
I do not wish to be unfair. I do not expect any Government in office for a matter of only a few weeks to be able

to make specific proposals, but at least they should be able to give some indication of the aims towards which they are working, especially in view of the tantalising references made by the hon. Gentleman towards the end of his speech.
The Government have had five years of opposition to think about these things as well as having the material of the finance review which they inherited, virtually complete in its workings. We are entitled to ask whether this is the last Order of its kind under the present Act. Are we to expect a reduction in total public investment in Government spending on housing, not just a refashioning, to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase, but a total reduction or holding of Government investment by way of subsidy to local authorities instead of a continued expansion of expenditure in this important area?
Are we to expect for example what I raised at Question Time recently, a national rent rebate scheme such as we were looking at in the Department before the change of Government? Is there to be a slum clearance subsidy, an urban renewal subsidy or are we to expect a subsidy for local authorities with above-average costs on their housing revenue accounts? These are germane points. There has been plenty of time for the Government to work out some of their ideas on these. Are we to have some way of assisting in the refinancing of old debts, which is one of the problems facing many authorities?
We must be particularly concerned for those in the housing priority areas who have, or should have, a continuous rolling programme of housing redevelopment? More immediately, referring to operations under the Act with which the Order is concerned, what of those authorities in priority areas for which the Act and this Order are particularly important, which are not building to their capacity and not just because of the difficulties which we know they face. It is not new for local authorities to face such financial difficulties with housing. But there are some which are cutting back because they have decided as a matter of general policy not to proceed. We know what impact this is having on slum clearance, the housing lists and urban renewal problems in these areas.
We do not have to go far from this House to some of the London Boroughs,


let alone the rest of the country—to see what is happening. What of those authorities which, notwithstanding the prime intention of the subsidy granted under the Act and by the Order, are worsening rent rebate schemes rather than improving them, which are turning away from the model scheme recommended by the Ministry in 1967? The hon. Gentleman is probably learning some of the details and the appalling results arising from this kind of policy being pursued by certain authorities—I do not say a majority but some with the worst problems. In that connection what of the failure of a growing number of authorities to use the subsidy with which this Order is primarily concerned for rent rebate purposes, and rent rebates of a civilised and humane kind such as the 1967 model scheme?
We are entitled to ask these germane questions. Even though it is only a few weeks since the Government took office we ought to be able to get some idea of the thinking going on because these are important matters, causing growing concern to tenants, many members of local authorities and certainly to many of us on both sides who have taken a continuous interest in housing problems in all their complexities for many years, going back well before we were elected to this House.
The problem cannot be solved by adopting an immutable attitude to particular kinds of subsidy systems, but we should not be too quick to throw out a subsidy system which has been of considerably more help to local authorities in the last few years than any previous system without being sure that the new system, if there is to be one, and the new emphases, if there are to be new emphases, are directed at an expansion of housing activity and not a reduction.
Whatever differences and doubts there may be about the subsidy system covered by this Order and its predecessors, we are entitled to an answer to at least one question—and it is not a flippant but a very important question: Is it the intention to reduce the Government commitment below the projected expenditure under the present Act, not just in the coming year, but over the years ahead for which there is a broad pattern of

housing need, even if it is only on the basis of the slum clearance returns which are with the Ministry, or is it to be maintained, even allowing for a re-fashioning of the use of public money so that we can more effectively achieve the objectives of urban renewal, slum clearance and the removal of obsolescence, about which we should be concerned in the House and in local government?

1.22 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: I wish to take up only one point which the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Free-son) made, and that was when he congratulated my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on his appointment. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I hope that my hon. Friend will fill the post for many months, and we know that he will fill it with distinction and very ably.
There is one matter which strikes one immediately about the Order almost like a hard slap in the face, and that is the extremely high representative interest rate of 9·23 per cent. which has to be paid as an average by local authorities undertaking house building. When the subsidy was first brought forward in 1965–66, the representative rate was 6·19 per cent. There has therefore been a considerable rise in the rate in a few years.
Reference has been made to the criticisms of this type of subsidy. One is that the representative rate is based on the preceding year's average, and, on an annual rising scale from 6·19 per cent. in 1965–66 to 9·23 per cent. today, there has been an additional burden on the local authorities borrowing today and receiving a subsidy based on an average of the preceding year when the rate was lower. I feel sure that local authorities will be most gratified that the situation seems to be levelling out, and this year they will perhaps benefit more from this subsidy than they have done in the past.
The other defect which has rightly been mentioned is that the representative rate is based on an average, and some local authorities are, therefore, borrowing at much higher than the representative rate. For these two reasons, it is, clearly, misleading to suggest, as was suggested by hon. Members opposite when in Government, that local authorities were receiving a subsidy of anything they had to pay by


way of interest above 4 per cent. In many cases they had to pay much more than 4 per cent. Therefore, the subsidy is not as helpful as would appear on the face of it.
There is, however, a third criticism of this kind of subsidy, which has not been mentioned but is, I feel, the most important criticism of all. The subsidy applies only as and when the buildings, the houses and the flats, have been constructed and are let. From the inception of any redevelopment scheme, however, from acquisition of the land and buildings upon it, from demolition of those buildings to the construction of new blocks of flats and their letting, periods of two to three years elapse, and during those periods local authorities have to borrow and pay interest at the full rate. They do not receive this subsidy. As they borrow at between 9 and 10 per cent. for two to three years, they have to bear the whole burden of that interest rate. This has been one of the greatest disincentives against local authorities proceeding with house-building programmes. This is one of the reasons why there has been a shortfall in building programmes in recent months.

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Member speaks with experience of local government. So do I. He must know that so far from its being a disincentive, it should be an incentive to get the land used as quickly as possible, because the sooner it is built on and completed the sooner the subsidy operates.

Mr. Rossi: When local authorities appreciate the cost in which they will involve themselves in embarking on the scheme, there is a disincentive against embarking on it, buying the land and going forward with redevelopment. They think twice when they realise what will be the cost to the ratepayer at interest rates of 9 to 10 per cent. over two to three years before the subsidy begins to operate. This is the fundamental weakness of the subsidy.
I hope that in the review which is to be carried out and which my hon. Friend has mentioned the closest attention will be paid to this matter as it is on of the most important matters influencing the minds of local authorities when deciding whether they can afford to go ahead with a housing scheme.
One other matter which is an equal disincentive is the continual rises in the cost of construction. Since 1964 the rise in the cost of houses has been phenomenal. Borrowing has to be undertaken on the capital cost. That is the relevance of these subsidies. Possibly my hon. Friend, when he replies, can give an indication of the amount by which the cost of housing has increased since 1964. Unless we know this, it is difficult to balance in their right context questions of the kind that we have to consider in an Order of this kind.
One welcomes any kind of help to local authorities in carrying forward housing schemes, but let us not be misled, as the hon. Member for Willesden, East would mislead us, into believing that this scheme, which he and his hon. Friends introduced, was the complete answer to local authorities' housing problems. There are many serious defects in this type of subsidy, and we are very glad to learn that the whole system is being looked at closely and that we shall see radical changes in it.

1.30 a.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: It has been my privilege to take part in all these debates on such Orders as this since the system was introduced. I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) on making this year the same speech as he has made every year, but I do not think the criticisms which he uttered when in Opposition are made any better by being made on the Government side. I will join with him in this, that I also congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his appointment, and also the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on his. I hope their terms of office will be measured in months but I hope they will be enjoyable ones.
No one has pretended that the present system is perfect. There are defects in it, and attempts were made by hon. Members opposite when in Opposition to remedy some of those defects, and now that they have brought forward their first Order under the system it is not unreasonable for us on this side of the House to ask the Government why they have not remedied the defects. If the answer is that they have not had time, I pray them to read again the speeches they have made in the past—hostages to fortune, I agree.
There were some by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who is not here now. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is."] I beg the hon. Member's pardon, but I had not seen him sitting there. I do not think I have seen a flower so modestly cringing to one side. The hon. Member made the point in 1968 that it was time to remedy these defects, and he argued about the representative rate of interest and said it was always one year behind, and that point has been confirmed again tonight. Why, then, has there been no attempt to anticipate what the rate is to be next year or what, as it were, the gains will be on the swings as distinct from the losses on the roundabouts? Is there to be any change in interest rates at all? But now it seems that hon. Gentlemen opposite are converted to this method of the average. Or are they?
It was my misfortune last year not to be able to make a speech in the debate then because I was helping the Under-Secretary of State and was concerned in another matter entirely divorced from the business of the House—

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): The hon. Member did a good job.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I did a good job. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. At that time my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State mentioned that point which concerns this Order we are discussing tonight. He said:
I do not want to instance one or two particular cases, but I have been fairly generous in respect of Glasgow's costs, when the hon. Gentleman might have asked us on other occasions why we allowed such costs to be supported by subsidy. … There was a discussion with Glasgow on the form of the subsidy. Glasgow has suggested that there should be a new form of pool subsidy based on a notional deficit on housing revenue accounts. It admitted it had not worked it out. We are always willing to listen to suggestions, and we are associated with the Ministry"—
of Housing and Local Government—
in a long-term look at the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July 1969; Vol. 787, c. 1445.]
One would have imagined that after this period it would have been possible for the hon. Gentleman to comment on that. We would have felt obliged, at the behest of the hon. Gentleman, to make a comment on that, or at least see

how far we had taken the position with respect to the great City of Glasgow. In case it is thought to be a narrow parochial point of concern only to the great City of Glasgow, I would point out that it affects the rest of the United Kingdom. No less a person than the present Prime Minister made a specific promise in June this year in the City of Glasgow that there would be urgent special help to the city itself, and yet on the first occasion that an Order is brought before the House it lacks any reference to the Glasgow problem. Yet the previous Administration solemnly promised that the position of Glasgow would be fairly considered.
My complaint is that we have not been told why the Glasgow position has not been rectified, why no attempt has been made in the Order to adjust the position to give—and I quote the Prime Minister—" special aid to the city". If this item were included in the Order, other hon. Members would complain that their cities were not being given special aid, and the singular criteria that apply to Glasgow would have to be shown to be so singular that Glasgow alone should benefit. I would basically question that. Aberdeen and Dundee might be able to sustain as good a case as Glasgow, and there may even be large cities in England able to do so.
But that is not my position. I do not have to justify that; the Under-Secretary of State has to. He was the one who endorsed this and supported his leader, the present Prime Minister, in this claim for special aid for Glasgow, and he has just completed discussions, as a result of our past efforts to get in order the city's housing programme, which is sadly behind, on grounds that it is financially difficult so to do. This is the case of the present governing body in the city. He will tell us tonight, I hope, what is the alternative, outwith this Order, for special aid. Otherwise we are right to complain about the omission from the Order of a reference to the City of Glasgow.
Another matter, perhaps not so significant, is the absence of a separate rate for housing associations. As an ex-Minister, I fully appreciate why the hon. Gentleman is unable to provide for this in an Order of this kind, be it in reference to England and Wales or to Scotland. But


it was hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Secretary of State for Scotland who insisted that it was possible to have a separate rate for housing associations. I am talking not of the Scottish Special Housing Association, which is provided for in the Order, but of housing associations generally. The Under-Secretary of State has on occasion complained—and I have agreed with him—that housing associations in Scotland have not been developing at the same pace as in England and Wales. Why have the present Administration, despite their past championing, found themselves unable to include this in the Order?
In view of what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary as he finished introducing the Order, can we be told how long the Order will last? Can we have an absolute assurance that it will go right through to the end of the financial year and will not be replaced in midstream by something else? Let us be fair. Local authorities which are embarking on developments are involved in building low rise houses that take 15 months in construction, which is longer than a financial year, or multi-storey development, which may take 22 months or even more, which is again longer than a financial year and is almost two financial years.
The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) made a good point when he said that some developments in terms of financial assessment have to be regarded in terms of a quinquennium, a five-year stretch, rather than in terms of one financial year—what Nye Bevan described as the vaster aspect of budgetary appreciation. We should be looking at a period of longer than one year.
If the Minister can say he intends to change the system, surely, although we cannot ask him to tell us what the new system is, at least we can ask him to give us precise assurances on when the new system will take over from the old system. We are entitled to confirmation that the Order will absolutely be carried out to the end of the financial year. I press the Minister to say that the new system will not take over until the end of two financial years, at least to cover the position of building, if not of the acquisition of land. May we have information about

how long this process changeover will take? How can we tell our burgh chamberlains and county treasurers the financial position unless we are able to get a precise assurance from the Government that we are to have a reasonable time with the present subsidy structure?
I finish by emphasising again the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson): can we have an assurance that the new system taking over will see a net real gain in investment in public sector housing by the Government in the time that they are in power? Will there be a net real gain, irrespective of how the system is changed? Everyone is concerned to see that there is not a real reduction in housing investment. Like many of my hon. Friends, I have always believed that the private sector, especially in Scotland, should be expanded. But that should not take place at the cost of a reduction in the public sector by a single house.
I would like the hon. Gentleman to give a positive assurance, if he can, similar to that contained in the manifesto of the Conservatives in 1968, which itself was less precise than their manifesto of 1970, saying that they would aim to build 50,000 houses in the foreseeable future. Will that be the policy for Scotland in the next few years? Does the target of 50,000 remain unchanged—that on figures, that on money, that on the length of this Order, and that on the changeover of the system? These are all matters of importance.
The hon. Gentleman told us about Glasgow. The citizens of Glasgow want to hear whether there is to be a change on the rate support grant. If not on this Order, will it be added to an Order of this kind later in the Session, or will it be brought in in some other way? These are essential matters for discussion, even at this late hour.

1.42 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): Perhaps I might comment briefly on the Scottish Order, which is made under Section 2 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Scotland Act, 1968. It has the same background and serves the same purpose as the Order for England and Wales, with


the addition of the reference to the Scottish Special Housing Association. As in England and Wales, the Order is required, and its content is largely determined by existing legislation on housing subsidies.
All the consultations required by the Act have taken place. The local authority associations, the Scottish branch of the National Federation of Housing Societies, the development corporations of the Scottish new towns, and the Scottish Special Housing Association have accepted the rates proposed.
As might be expected, the rates in the Scottish Order for houses completed in 1970–71 are also well above those for last year. The rate for local authorities, which applies also to housing associations, goes up by 1·35 per cent., which is the biggest jump so far. The S.S.H.A. and the new town rates go up by 1·32 and 0·87 per cent. respectively.
The calculation has been done on the same basis as before. In the Library there are copies of the memorandum prepared by the Scottish Development Department on the calculation of the local authority rate, and this gives full information about the amounts and sources of borrowing and the interest rates applying. The marginal differences between the rates specified for local authorities and new towns in Scotland and those for England and Wales reflect differences in the methods, amounts and timings of borrowing. There is no difference in principle.
The Order is necessary for the operation of the subsidy arrangements established by the Scottish 1967 Act and now consolidated in the 1968 Act. The calculations have been done on the same basis as in earlier years, and the representative rates have been agreed by all the associations and appropriate authorities, as I have said.
The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) raised one or two points on which I want to comment. First, he asked why the Government have not changed this year from using the previous year's interest rates. The answer is simple, and he, of all people, ought to know. The legislation was put through by him principally, and it requires

that the rate should be representative of borrowing in the year before the year of completion of a house.
Therefore, if the hon. Member's complaint is that we have not at this stage yet managed to put through a housing Bill altering the system he brought in some years ago, I plead guilty. We have not had time, and the simple answer to him is that it has not been changed because the legislation requires it to be done by this method.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Since the power is by legislation and the hon. Gentleman intends to legislate, does the hon. Member still regard it as practicable to have adjustable representative interest rates in a current year?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth. I have never said it was practicable to have such a thing, but if it is practicable, or it is suggested by anyone that it is practicable, I am very prepared to look at it. The position is that the legislation requires it. That is so.
The hon. Gentleman's second question was about Glasgow. He asked why there was not a separate reference to Glasgow in this Order. The answer is that no previous Order has referred to Glasgow, as he and the House know. The Act requires interest rates to be representative of authorities as a whole, and it would be a major departure to have in this system of housing subsidies a separate rate for Glasgow. But we have undertaken and pledged that we will consider Glasgow's problems specially. We intend to carry out that pledge, but we have no intention of rushing into action without conducting consultations with everyone involved, not least Glasgow Corporation. I am certain that Glasgow Corporation would not thank us for coming out with some new scheme if it had not had a chance of discussing it with us.
What we have said stands, and we intend to consult those concerned.
I am flattered that the hon. Member has spent much of his speech saying that we have not altered the present system. We have been in office, by my calculation, four weeks and five days, and it will take a bit longer to alter the system.


The necessary consultations have to be carried out and we shall do that and we shall then come before the House.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The Under-Secretary has not answered three questions of the five. He has touched on two mentioned. One common question of the five which my hon. Friend and I asked was whether there was any net real gain in the new system. The Under-Secretary is not doing himself justice by not answering that, at least.
On the second point about Glasgow, does the hon. Gentleman remember that the convenor of the housing committee of Glasgow Corporation, who is of the same political persuasion as him, wrote on 19th June to the Prime Minister asking for immediate implementation of the promise given during the election campaign—a very precise promise. He cannot shuffle off with the excuse that something has to be done and it cannot all be done at once. How is it to be done, under what Act, and in what way? Authorities may suffer if it is done in a way which means taking money from them. The hon. Gentleman must give an assurance, because other authorities will want to know that they are not affected by that pledge.

Mr. Younger: That is why it is essential to consult Glasgow and all other local authorities. It is impossible and wrong—and the hon. Gentleman would never have dreamt of it in office—to make a major change in the housing subsidy position without consulting the local authorities. I hope he would not have done so, and if he did, he should not have.
I have, of course, seen the letter sent by the convenor—

Dr. Dickson Mabon: To the Prime Minister.

Mr. Younger: —yes, to the Prime Minister, and, of course, the result will be close and detailed consultations with the Corporation to see how best to fulfil the pledge. The last thing Glasgow

wants is for us to make up our minds without ever consulting it.

Mr. Freeson: I am sorry to press the hon. Gentleman. However, one question on which I laid much stress towards the end of my remarks, which was picked up again by my hon. Friend, has been totally ignored.
Are the Government committed to maintaining the projected total expenditure on housing subsidy and Exchequer help in housing, whatever the refashioning may be on the particular ways that that money shall be spent, or are we to expect a reduction in the total expenditure? There must be a known answer now, because it is a matter of general commitment on policy, whether the Government intend to maintain the projected expenditure or to reduce it.

Mr. Younger: I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will agree that if we are reviewing the entire housing programme and the methods of carrying out housing and housing subsidies, we cannot possibly start from the position of deciding whether it will cost more or less or just what sum. We have to start by assessing the needs and consulting those concerned to find out the best way of fulfilling those needs. If we do not start from that point we are certain to produce a nonsense at the end of the day. Therefore, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an assurance in either direction. The criterion upon which we will judge housing policy is the needs of the country, and we will fit our policy to the needs of the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Housing Subsidies (Representative Rates of Interest) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Housing Subsidies (Representative Rates of Interest) (Scotland) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.—[Mr. Younger.]

Orders of the Day — TEACHING COUNCIL (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

1.52 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Edward Taylor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Perhaps the most dangerous words to use in the House of Commons are, "This is a non-controversial Bill." I hope that they will be justified on this occasion and that we shall not detain the House unduly long.
It may be recalled that this Bill was lost on the dissolution of the previous Parliament. It was introduced at the end of April, and on 5th May the consideration of principle was taken in the Scottish Grand Committee, where it received all-party support. On 12th May, in the Scottish Standing Committee, the Bill completed the Committee stage without amendment and virtually without debate—which must, indeed, be a record for the Scottish Standing Committee.
The Bill is a simple one. Its purpose is to empower the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring employers to deduct from the salaries of persons employed by them who are registered with the General Teaching Council for Scotland the fee payable to the council for renewal of registration. This requirement operates only where registration is a statutory requirement of the person's employment—for example, as a teacher in an education authority or a grant-aided school. On deduction of the fee, the employer is required to remit it to the council.
The text of the Bill is identical with that of the Bill introduced in the previous Parliament, apart from two minor changes. One is a drafting amendment and the other an omission. I can assure the House that neither affects the intention of the Bill in any way. In those circumstances, I commend the Bill to the House.

1.54 a.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan: This is the first occasion on which I

have had the opportunity in the House to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his accession to the position of Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office. I am glad to have this opportunity of congratulating him and of wishing him well in the office which he now holds.
The hon. Gentleman has made a short speech. It would seem that the burdens of office have already reduced his volubility very considerably. However, as he said, this is basically a non-controversial Bill which is, in substance, the same Bill that the previous Government introduced a month or two ago. I am glad to see the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who is now the P.P.S. to the Secretary of State for Scotland, in his place, for I have no doubt that he will make a passionate speech for the Bill in view of his enthusiasm for the General Teaching Council.
As the Minister said, the Measure merely makes the collection of the annual registration fees more effective than at present, and I wholly support that intention of the Bill. If we are to have compulsory registration, which I accept and support, and if we are to have the compulsory deduction of fees, which again I accept and support, there is an obligation to see that the General Teaching Council is so constituted and its affairs so conducted as to give the teachers concerned confidence in its operations.
In this context, would the hon. Gentleman comment on the recent decision of the Educational Institute of Scotland to put up an official list of candidates for the next elections to the General Teaching Council? The adoption of this policy by the main teachers' organisation in Scotland is contrary to the spirit in which the council was established. This raises the whole question of the election and nomination of members, a subject which was dealt with in paragraph 29 in particular of the document which the Labour Government published on the review of the constitution and functions of the Council.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend will recall that one of the most interested and active hon. Members in this subject for many years was the former Labour M.P. for the Western Isles, Mr. Malcolm MacMillan, who was defeated at the last General Election,


and whose constituency is now represented by a Scottish Nationalist. Since the new hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart) is not here to give the views of the S.N.P. on this important subject, would my hon. Friend do that for us?

Mr. Millan: I do not know whether I am competent to speak on behalf of the new S.N.P. hon. Member for the Western Isles. Perhaps my hon. Friend, who is a well-known Scotsman, would like to speak on his behalf.
As I was saying, the spirit of the Educational Institute of Scotland's proposal goes against the spirit of the composition of the General Teaching Council, to which members have been elected on an individual basis and not as representatives of particular organisations. If the E.I.S. carries out its proposed policy, it will mean that the E.I.S., representing by far the majority of teachers in Scotland, will find it possible to persuade its members to vote for the official list of candidates and so make a clean sweep of the teacher representatives on the council.
The question which immediately arises is whether this would involve the teacher members of the council in being committed to approve E.I.S. policy in regard to the activities of the council. Whatever the E.I.S. may say about this, it seems, in effect, that involved here is the whole question of the official list of candidates and teacher members being elected on that basis.
If that is not what is involved, then it is difficult to understand why the E.I.S. has taken this decision, for it is well-known that on the present council, the life of which has been extended, all but one of the teacher members are members of the E.I.S. It is clear from reading reports of the discussion at the E.I.S. Congress at which this decision was taken that some of the members of that organisation were objecting to certain council members not carrying out institute policy. Of course, there is no obligation on them, and should be no obligation on them, to carry out any particular policy on the General Teaching Council. They are there to represent the general interests of teachers and to take decisions which they think will be in the interests of the profession as a whole.
This new development strikes at the very basis of the council as at present constituted, and two questions arise for consideration. First, it raises the question, if this decision is to be implemented, whether or not we should have elections to the council at all. If there is to be an official list of candidates and they are to carry the day in the elections, it seems that we are to give no opportunity to the minority teacher organisations in Scotland to obtain representation on the council. We therefore have to consider whether we should do for the General Teaching Council in Scotland what has been rejected so far, but what my right hon. Friend who was Secretary of State for Education and Science agreed should be established for England and Wales. This was agreed before the election, and I take it that the present Government are committed to it.
Secondly, whether we continue with election or change to the very much cheaper method of nomination, it seems that this decision will inevitably reduce the status of the council. The proposal for a teaching council for England and Wales was drawn up in terms involving nomination by the teachers' associations, which gave that council a status and range of responsibilities a good deal less than those for the General Teaching Council for Scotland. If we go over to nomination and have an official list, inevitably the status of the General Teaching Council for Scotland will be reduced.
How far has the election procedure gone? How far is the E.I.S., as the main teachers' association, committed to the policy I have described? It would help us if the Under-Secretary could give us information on that. I very much hope that the E.I.S. will think again about this decision. I would be very glad to have the Under-Secretary's view on it. If the E.I.S. continues with this policy, what do the Government intend to do? Do they intend to leave the election arrangements as they are or make changes in them?
Before we allow the Bill, uncontroversial as it may be in substance to go through, we are entitled to have answers to these points. If we are to introduce this further element of compulsion into the affairs of the General Teaching Council, we are entitled to be reassured about how the council is to be constituted and how its affairs will be conducted in future. We should have answers to these points.

2.4 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I understand that it is a custom of the House that maiden speakers should pay a tribute to the Member who preceded them and say something about their constituency. I am happy to do this.
My predecessor was Mr. Donald Dewar. I know that his reputation as a Member of Parliament in the constituency was as a man of industry, integrity and impartiality in dealing with the queries and problems of his constituents. I know that as an opponent at the General Election he was fair and honourable. One pleasant thing among the many pleasant things which I have experienced since entering the House has been the number of hon. Members on both sides who have come up to me to pay tribute to Mr. Donald Dewar, and there are many in the House who will wish him a speedy return—though, I would say, not in Aberdeen.
Of the great city of Aberdeen itself and of the many merits of the city and its citizens, I say only this. Its uniquely handsome buildings of granite, its ancient university, its famous fishing industry, and the renown of its citizens for thrift and hard work, for shrewdness and friendliness, are well known to hon. Members and to all the far world beyond the House. Out of regard for the hour and for hon. Members, I will expatiate no further on its many virtues.
I want to make two moderate and short observations on the Bill. First, although I entirely support the general aims of the Teaching Council in striving to improve the status and standards of the profession and applaud what it has achieved so far, I am very unhappy about the principle of the compulsory deduction of fees at source from salary, as this is a statutory power never before conferred on a similar body. It is a precedent. No Government Department that I have asked for guidance has been able to come up with an example of a similar statutory power conferred on a similar body.
Why is this power being given? The original Wheatley Commission said, and subsequent submissions have also said, that it is for administrative convenience. I would hope that a warning bell would ring in the ears of any Minister when

he hears such a phrase used in such a context. I should hope that every Government would make it a maxim that administrative convenience should never be served at the expense of the rights of the individual.
It is precisely because I believe that the rights of the individual, admittedly in a small way, but none the less a way, are being diminished that I am unhappy about the Bill. I find the extension of powers to make compulsory deductions at source like this objectionable in principle. The difference between compulsory deduction from an individual and compulsory payment by an individual afterwards may not be much, but there is a difference and a distinction and there is a diminution of rights. The Bill would tighten the screw of compulsion. It removes one more action from the responsibility of the individual, one more action from the volition of the individual, and places it in the hands of the authorities.
I am not pretending that this compulsory deduction of fees at source is a great tyranny, but it is a precedent in this general area on which greater tyrannies and compulsions could be built. That is why I view it with suspicion and disfavour.
The second matter on which I should like to make an observation is this. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to
persons who must, by law, be registered as teachers with the General Teaching Council".
This seems a totally unambiguous phrase. The Explanatory Memorandum says that all who would be teachers employed by a local authority must by law be registered with the Teaching Council. This implies that this is the law beyond any doubt or question. This implication surprises me because, although I am no lawyer, the law is in doubt, exactly because a case on this very matter we are discussing has been brought to court by one of my constituents, the Reverend J. S. Malloch. The judge will give his opinion today. In law the matter is still under appeal, and I therefore submit that the Explanatory Memorandum is definitely misleading in this way.
I am further surprised at the implication that the law is beyond doubt or question, because while it is true that until now the law has been interpreted that anyone who wants to be a teacher with a local authority must be registered with


the G.T.C., only yesterday I received an answer from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in which he told me:
… it is for the education authority to decide whether to engage unregistered persons for teaching posts for which they are eligible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1970; Vol. 804, c. 137.]
Is this a change in the interpretation, or is it not? It seems to me that it is.
If this means what it seems to mean, it means that education authorities can employ unregistered teachers if they possess the correct professional qualifications; that is, certification or the equivalent. If this is so, it means that the 24 teachers who have been dismissed since 1968, and all those other teachers who were not dismissed but who left the profession and emigrated, all those teachers who were deprived by retroactive legislation of their jobs, their career prospects and their incomes, were the victims of a very grave injustice. I am sorry that the Bill does nothing to remedy that injustice, and, indeed, seems to compound it.
I hope that my hon. Friend will think again and that he can do something to remedy this matter, because although it is true, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said, that these matters have been raised before in the House, and these arguments rehearsed—I was not a Member at the time—the fact remains that injustice was done, the injustice remains, and this injustice must be done away with. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with this as a matter of urgency. My hon. Friend may say that 24 people who have suffered is not enough. I do not think that he should quantify justice in that way. These people have undoubtedly suffered very much, indeed, as I hope my hon. Friend will agree.
It would be so simple to settle this matter once and for all equably, and there is ample and happy precedent for settling it. If the council were set up in the manner in which bodies of lawyers and doctors have been set up, the matter could be settled, and justice could be done. For example, the Law Society in England, though not in Scotland, has a list of those qualified to practise law, and nobody who is not on that list is allowed to practise, and that is absolutely

right, but although all who are members of the Law Society are on that list, not all the people on that list are members of the Law Society. This seems to be right and fair, and it should be possible for the G.T.C. to be constructed on fair and similar lines in Scotland in such a way as to enshrine the notable achievements the G.T.C. has made so far, but at the same time to remedy the injustices which have been done and to obviate injustices which might arise in the future.
If that were done, it would mean that all properly qualified teachers, not others, would be allowed and encouraged to teach in Scotland, and I remind my hon. Friend that at the moment when there is a disastrous shortage of teachers in Scotland, there are 19 teachers in Aberdeen alone who are not allowed to teach, and who want to teach, but have been driven out of teaching by the regulations passed by the previous Government. I hope that the reinstatement of dismissed teachers will receive urgent consideration.
I would hope that teachers would join the G.T.C. so constructed—nearly all doctors, but not all, are members of the B.M.A.—but that they will do so from choice and not from compulsion. In a world increasingly complex, technically and socially, the rights and responsibilities of individuals are being encroached upon and eroded further and further year by year. Surely, this is a matter about which the House should be most vigilant. I believe that this case, though perhaps small, raises just such an instance.
I thank the House for its indulgence.

2.15 a.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: I did not intend to speak, but I am moved to my feet because, after sitting here for some considerable time waiting for another debate of even more general interest than the one in which we are engaged now, I was really woken up by the maiden speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). I congratulate him on speaking so extremely well [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—on his tribute, a well justified tribute, to the great City of Aberdeen, and on the fluency, liveliness and critical sense with which he spoke. I am sure that we shall hear a great


deal more from him, though at more convenient times of the day, perhaps.
I fear that by the time the hon. Gentleman has migrated to the Front Bench, as almost inevitably he will in view of the quality and character of his speech today, he will be a little less optimistic about what Governments want in regard to the rights of individuals. All Governments are pretty well committed to not wanting the sort of thing that the hon. Gentleman wants, or that I want for that matter, in regard to private rights and individual rights.
However, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman most sincerely. I rose only to say that, as I thought that no one else on this side was rising at that point, and it is more convenient, perhaps, that one of us should say it rather than one of his hon. Friends.

2.16 a.m.

Mr. Edward Taylor: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has eloquently paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), and I associate myself entirely with what he said about my hon. Friend's magnificent maiden speech, a speech which raised a serious point of principle in relation to the Bill which all of us on this side will wish to bear very much in mind for the future. I congratulate my hon. Friend on an extremely good speech, and I hope that we shall hear a great deal more from him, not just on this subject but on many others.
My hon. Friend raised an important issue, a matter of principle, as he put it, relating to the question of the dismissal of certificated teachers who have declined, for their own reasons, to register with the General Teaching Council. The council was welcomed, and has been welcomed, by the vast majority of teachers in Scotland, but there is this small number, though an important number, as my hon. Friend said, of teachers who have declined to register.
I assure my hon. Friend straightaway that I recognise that the objections of these teachers to registration are deeply and sincerely held, but I find it difficult to accept them as objections of conscience. Some teachers thought that they should have "reserved rights" to continued employment without registration.

I put it frankly to my hon. Friend—I hope he will think about it—that that would have created an impossible situation. We could not have two systems of recognition of teachers running side by side, one by the Secretary of State and one by the Teaching Council. That would be the position if we had a system other than that which we now have.
The Wheatley Committee, which led to the setting up of the General Teaching Council, recognised this. It recognised that the Secretary of State's powers to award and withdraw certificates should be taken away. This was done in the 1965 Act. The General Teaching Council took over this power from the Secretary of State. It was clearly envisaged at the outset that, with the introduction of registration as the mark of recognition of the qualified teacher, registration would have to be a requirement where certification formerly had been. The Wheatley Committee said in its report:
We envisage that by legislative act registration will effectively replace certification. We think it desirable, therefore to stress that all existing certificated teachers will have to register with the Council, from a date to be determined by it, if they wish to continue to be entitled to the advantages of certification.
It will not be enough for them to assume that once having been certificated they need take no further steps to maintain their position.
I emphasise that the Bill does not introduce a massive new principle. Registration is in existing legislation, and the Bill simply says that, whereas payment had to be made before, the payment will be deducted from salaries by the local authorities.
On the question of the teachers being unemployed, even though the number employed is small I join in deploring absolutely that we are deprived of the services of any qualified teachers. Appointments in further education are open to them as well as temporary appointments in secondary schools whether the services of registered or conditionally registered teachers cannot be secured, but these are matters for the education authorities and not for me. But I assure my hon. Friend that I will bear very much in mind what he has said in our future discussions of the matter.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) raised a very important point. First, he asked me about the elections of the G.T.C. He asked how far


they had gone and what was the present position. He will be aware, because he was responsible for it, that the Teaching Council (Scotland) Election Scheme Approval Order 1970 came into operation on 16th May, 1970, and the first stages of the electoral process under that Order have been started by the council. A notice of election was issued by the council on 15th June. Nominations have to be submitted not later than 30th September, and at least 28 days before that date the council will issue a further notice specifying the detailed requirements for nomination.
But it was not just about the mechanics of the scheme that the hon. Gentleman asked. He asked about the action that has been taken by one of the major teacher organisations. As he said, the Wheatley Committee in its report in 1963 was concerned to dissociate the council from the teachers' organisations, and for this reason recommended against the nomination of teacher-members by associat ions. He mentioned this as something we might possibly wish to do in the future; but Wheatley quite clearly came out against this, and it would be wrong to consider any step in this direction, certainly at this stage.
In the review of the constitution and functions of the council conducted last year by the then Secretary of State for Scotland, one of the teachers' organisations proposed that teacher-members should be appointed by associations. The hon. Gentleman said that this is being considered in England, but this view found little support, and a number of bodies expressed opposition.
The final decision was to adhere to the system of election by the profession at large, and I have been glad to note that the council in submitting its electoral schemes for approval by the then Secretary of State accepted the recommendation in the review memorandum that
in the electoral process candidates should not be designated so as to identify them with any particular association.
Here we have Wheatley opposing this kind of nomination and the review set up by the Secretary of State opposing it in the same way. When both are giving the same message, it would be a mistake to consider any general change in the arrangements.
All that I have said seems to me to denote an intention to keep the council out of the field of association rivalries, and this I welcome. It is open to the Educational Institute of Scotland, or any other body, to take such steps as it thinks fit in support of candidates for the election of teacher-members of the council, and I have noted the grounds the institute has given to justify the setting up of an official list of candidates. Nevertheless, I am bound to express some doubt whether the decision is really in keeping with the spirit either of the Wheatley recommendation or of the decision taken at the review last year. It is, however, a matter for the institute, but I hope that it will take very careful note of what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton has said tonight and the sympathy which I have expressed for those sentiments.
I started off this short debate by expressing the hope that the Bill was non-controversial, that we could deal with it very quickly and that we should not detain the House long. We have detained the House for rather longer than we expected, but—

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman has said something about the matter I raised. However, I asked what the Government intended to do about it if the E.I.S. continued with this proposal.
While I am on my feet, may I be allowed briefly to congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) on an excellent maiden speech?

Mr. Taylor: At this stage it would be unwise to give any indication of what we will do if this goes on. I hope that the E.I.S. will take careful note of what has been said.
We have discussed this matter for far too long this evening, but it is an important question for teaching in Scotland, and we have heard an excellent maiden speech and those hon. Members who do not represent Scottish constituencies have learnt a little more about our excellent Scottish educational system.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills.)

Orders of the Day — PRIVILEGES (DETAINED MEMBERS)

2.26 a.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move,
That the matter of the rights of any honourable Member of this House who may be detained in one of Her Majesty's Prisons, and of his or her constituents, be referred to the Committee of Privileges; and that they do consider and report to what extent the privileges of this House require that such a Member should be granted facilities to carry out his parliamentary duties while in prison.
There are two principal reasons why it is important to move the Motion. First, it is clear from the degree of interest shown by many hon. Members recently in the procedural and constitutional issues raised by the imprisonment of the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) that there is a widespread desire in the House that these issues should be clarified from the point of view of the privileges of any Member of the House in a situation of this kind. A sufficiently wide area of doubt has been revealed by this case for it to be in the interests of the House as a whole to review the question in a general context.
It is equally clear that hon. Members in all parts of the House are concerned with the problem posed for constituents if their Member is unable in a situation of this kind to carry out whether wholly or partly, his or her parliamentary duties and thereby they are deprived, through no fault of their own, of their entitlement to full Parliamentary representation.
These are matters, I think the House will agree, of considerable constitutional importance, evoking major historical precedents and because of that the Government are properly concerned. Above all, however, these are matters with which the House of Commons itself is conerned, as it would be a sad day for our democratic institutions if it were the prerogative of the Government of the day to determine in what circumstances a Member, duly elected, should exercise his or her parliamentary responsibilities. It therefore seemed to the Government that the proper course was for this issue to be referred to the Committee of Privileges, consisting as it does of a number of the most senior Parliamentarians among us, for its consideration and for

the Government to make any recommendations to the House for any changes in practice in the light of the Committee's advice.
I do not wish to detain the House further at this stage. I hope that the House will share my view that a reference to the Committee of Privileges is the most appropriate course for us to follow, in what has obviously been a very difficult case for the House, in the confident knowledge that the Committee will give this important issue its earnest and authoritative consideration.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Latham.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Latham: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Parliament is a courteous place. Mr. Latham.

Mr. Latham: I was about to say that my admiration for the Leader of the House grows daily. I am becoming convinced that he would be able to sail oil the Prime Minister's boat single-handed since he has been handling most of the matters which would seem to concern colleagues other than himself. The Motion which he has been kind enough to lay before the House follows very closely the Early Day Motion to which 89 hon. Members have subscribed. The fact that it is somewhat detailed may make it possible for the Committee of Privileges to deal with wider issues than would have been possible if the Early Day Motion had been before us.
I want to approach the subject tonight in a somewhat lower key than some of the exchanges we have had during the day and earlier. I feel less obligated to make an extremely brief speech having spent the last three and a half hours waiting in the Chamber. I know that the House has been discussing important matters but I doubt very much whether in terms of parliamentary precedence there are many matters which are of greater importance than the issues raised in the recent case.
One thing, which I believe is well understood in the House, although there may be some exceptions, but which may be misunderstood outside, is that it ought


to be made clear that those of us who have been pursuing this matter have never had it in mind and have never sought to claim that Members of Parliament should in any way be above the law. It may well be argued that as Members of Parliament, in one sense, we have a greater duty to observe the law. I recall an anecdote recounted to me when I came to the House a short while ago, about the Member of Parliament who was stopped by a policeman for speeding and wanted to use the fact that he was a Member of Parliament somehow or other to get easy treatment. The police constable replied, having found out that he was dealing with a Member of Parliament, "You make the laws, sir; it's up to you to observe them." The colleague travelling with the hon. Member felt that that constable deserved promotion.
That attitude is generally right. The Motion is headed "Privileges", and I feel that it is a pity that is does not have the same heading as the Early Day Motion, which was "The Rights of Hon. Members." It is that with which we are concerned, and perhaps even more particularly the rights of constituents, as the Leader of the House has said. We do know that there are some instances when a constituent can seek redress only through his Member of Parliament. The classic example is a matter which might be referred to the Ombudsman. It is also true that although one is concerned about the rights of constituents, one does not want Members of Parliament to be above the law.
It is true, too, that hon. Members have certain duties and obligations beyond those of the ordinary citizen. They have obligations to Parliament, and one particular matter that I would ask the Committee on Privileges to examine is the appeal judgment in the case which has given rise to this, where the question of the right of the Member of Parliament to be on the scene of a particular incident in which the Member has special reason to be interested was questioned. In East London there were incidents recently of which I as Member for Paddington, North had special reason to take account. If there had been some particular incident there I would have felt, on behalf of my constituents, that

there were special reasons why I should be admitted to that area. This is a parallel to the situation in Northern Ireland.
When this matter was first raised, some hon. Members opposite felt that it was rather absurd to suggest that a Government majority might be imperilled as a consequence of a number of Members being imprisoned. I hope that some of the exchanges over the last two or three weeks have led those who were in some doubt to realise, as the Leader of the House has realised from the beginning, that this is an extremely serious matter.
As Members would expect, because of the interest created by this matter, I have had many letters, most of which have been sympathetic. But I have had one which threatened to shoot me if I went to Belfast last Tuesday. I was saved by the fact that my secretary failed to give me the letter—and, I understand, quite deliberately. I trust that that can be interpreted as loyalty and that there was no other motive. However, I should like to refer to one letter because it has some bearing on the public attitude to the question whether Members are claiming privileges beyond that which is reasonable.
The letter states:
Nothing will be missed by the absence from Westminster of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster. She does not deserve sympathy. You must be in love with her to raise this matter".
The letter concludes:
Perhaps you are Irish too".
I have been gratified that a number of Conservative Members have in the last few days indicated that they are not as impatient about this matter as some of their colleagues have demonstrated in this Chamber when I have raised points of order about it. This leads me to the point as to why I as an English Member of Parliament should be raising this matter in connection with a Northern Ireland Member. It is proper and desirable that an English Member should have raised it. This is not simply a Northern Ireland matter which the House can regard as unique and different.
I acknowledge that I am concerned about the position of the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster. I hope that I shall not stray out of order if I convey


at the request of the hon. Lady three very brief messages.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I help the hon. Gentleman? He is not out of order in referring to the specific case of the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster.

Mr. Latham: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Lady has confirmed that she has been pursuing, or attempting to pursue via the prison governor, with the Stormont authorities the very points which we have been pursuing in the House. Secondly, she has asked me to convey her personal gratitude and appreciation to those who are concerned about her well-being and her difficulty. Thirdly, the conditions which she is experiencing give no real cause for complaint, bearing in mind that it is a gaol in which she is obliged to live at present. Although not many hon. Members opposite may be particularly interested in that piece of news, I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will be pleased to hear it and to know that civilised treatment is being meted out to our hon. Friend in Armagh Gaol. [HON. MEMBERS: "Really."]

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: What do hon. Gentlemen mean by "really"?

Mr. Latham: I am surprised that the party of gallant Gentlemen on the benches opposite are not concerned about the lot of a lady Member of the House who finds herself in this situation.
I go on from that to say that I am genuinely and sincerely concerned primarily with the constitutional questions which have arisen out of this situation. Some hon. Members opposite may choose to be sceptical and cynical. It is for them to judge whether what I am saying is the true position, but I assure those who are prepared to listen that this is the case.
On the many issues which have arisen out of this incident, the rules of the House and the past precedents have been put to the test and, having been put to the test, have been found wanting very much indeed. It is clear that there is a vast area of problems for which there is no adequate precedent and for which there is no adequate Ruling,

custom and practice by which we might be guided.
I would have hoped that the Leader of the House might have been able to include in his Motion a request that the Committee of Privileges should also consider and report upon whether any breach of privilege or contempt of the House has arisen in connection with all the circumstances relating to the imprisonment of the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster and all the matters consequential upon that and, in particular—I say this with care and advisedly—because earlier today, as the result of correspondence which was published and events leading up to it with which we are familiar, an Officer of this House was seriously maligned.
I hope that the Leader of the House, as Chairman of the Committee of Privileges, will consider it proper that that Committee should also investigate that matter, because I believe that if it conducts such an investigation, it will find that the charges made against the Officer of the House were unwarranted and that the blame for what has happened rests elsewhere. I hope that due note will have been taken by the Leader of the House that the Clerk's letter was issued on 21st July and that the Home Office memorandum was sent to Stormont on 14th or 15th July. I emphasise that this is a matter which needs to be investigated closely.
I hope, too, that the Motion means, and that the Leader of the House will give an assurance, that all the broad issues which have been raised will be considered by the Committee of Privileges and that all the submissions which have been made to Mr. Speaker, as recorded in HANSARD, and Mr. Speaker's comments at the time will also be considered relevant to the report that the Committee prepares.
Some of us had thought that a Select Committee might have been a better way of dealing with the problem since we feared that the Committee of Privileges might, in the same way as is Mr. Speaker, be governed by precedent and, perhaps, be unable to rule because of some of the unique circumstances which arise in this case. The Leader of the House advises, I understand, that the Committee of Privileges is well able to make the fullest inquiries and need not be inhibited for


that reason. I hope that he will give that assurance in reply.
In addition, we have also the strange position which is consequential upon the devolution of many powers of the British Parliament to the Parliament in Northern Ireland. One of the serious matters which should be considered is what would be the position of a Westminster Member of Parliament who was imprisoned in Northern Ireland, not in the same circumstances as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster but, perhaps, under the Special Powers Act operating in Northern Ireland, who might thereby be imprisoned without trial.
Furthermore, while, no doubt, hon. Gentlemen will quote precedents for the enlightenment of Members of the House, I hope, too, that the Committee of Privileges will look at the relationship between Stormont and this Parliament, because the maintenance of a Parliament in Northern Ireland must surely depend to some extent on a due recognition of the rôle of the two bodies and an avoidance of any situation in which Stormont would appear to be in contempt of this House.
Now, the Ministry of Home Affairs—and in this respect it is unique—I think may be ahead of the British Home Office, because as a result of the representations which constituents of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster have been making to Stormont, the Ministry of Home Affairs has issued a memorandum, a very detailed one, dealing, as it sees it, with the rights of Members of Parliament, and it has said that it deems it wise to think in terms of Members of Parliament in general rather than that of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster in particular, although it goes on to add—and some hon. Gentlemen may particularly like to note this comment from the Ministry—
This is not, of course, to be taken as implying any view whatsoever on whether the present case will remain unique.
Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite may like to reflect on the implications of that comment from the Ministry of Home Affairs.
This is a long document and I shall not quote it in full, but I should like briefly to indicate to the House what the statement says. It says:
There is a degree of flexibility in the provisions of Prison Rules which enables

special arrangements to be made to meet the exceptional needs of individual prisoners. The Ministry recognises that Members of Parliament have responsibilities towards their constituents, and account can be taken of this in applying the provisions of Prison Rules to Members of Parliament serving sentences of imprisonment. Accordingly, since a Member of Parliament serving a sentence of imprisonment cannot carry out constituency business in person from the prison, he may be allowed special visits in order to arrange for an agent to carry out constituency business on his behalf. The agent in conjunction with the Member may prepare a list of not more than six constituency workers for the purposes of having access to the Member while in prison, whose names, together with his own, shall be subject to the Ministry's approval. A group of not more than three people, including the agent, from the approved list may visit the prisoner once weekly. These visits are to be subject to the following conditions.
It is these five conditions which I particularly wish to draw to the attention of the House and of the Leader of the House:
(1) They will take place in the sight, but not the hearing, of a prison officer.
That would seem reasonable, to safeguard confidential discussions between a Member and his constituent.
(2) Only matters relating to the affairs of the Member's constituents may be discussed.
(3) The Member may be shown correspondence, but may not take possession of correspondence or any other article without the prior approval of the Governor.
(4) The Member may not sign or issue letters except under the normal provisions of Prison Rules.
This means that although the confidentiality of a constituent's matters in approaching the Member in the first instance is protected, the confidentiality is then breached, because any correspondence which the Member might then attempt to convey to a Minister or Government Department on behalf of a constituent would be subject to scrutiny and surveillance by the prison governor. This condition, I suggest, makes the arrangement very difficult to operate.
It goes on to say:
(5) The visits are not be used as a means of passing unauthorised messages—i.e., the approved visitors shall not quote for publication statements on general political questions purporting to be those of the Member.
Again, I ask the Leader of the House and the Committee of Privileges to take particular note of that, and to examine past precedents. I think they will be correct in examining precedents in Northern Ireland as well as elsewhere


since the Motion refers to Her Majesty's prisons and those in Northern Ireland are as much Her Majesty's prisons as those elsewhere in the United Kingdom, although they are under different ministerial responsibility. I hope that the Leader of the House will pay particular attention to the situation of a gentleman who is now a Member of the House but who was imprisoned become coming to the House and was apparently able from prison to issue sermons of highly political content. If it was in order for that prisoner, who was not a Member of Stormont or of this House, to make political statements whilst in prison, it would seem that the same facility should be offered to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster and others in a similar situation.
The regulations conclude:
The agent may arrange with the governor to have mail addressed to the Member and delivered unopened to an address specified by the agent. This is on the understanding that the contents of any letters which contain threats against the Member or otherwise affect prison security are to be disclosed immediately to the prison governor.
It will be clear on reflection that this set of regulations is not an adequate model of rules to meet the difficulties which arise and requires considerable clarification.
May I take the opportunity to pay a tribute to the very civilised attitude of the deputy prison governor who has been acting in this matter and has been most co-operative and helpful as far as he can within prison regulations.
I conclude by saying that your Ruling today. Mr. Speaker, has been extremely helpful. You have made it clear that no Ruling has been given by you that it would not be possible for the hon. Lady to be sworn in. This too is something which the Committee of Privileges must look at as a general principle. As a result of your Ruling today, the responsibility for the hon. Lady being unable to come to this House to take the oath has been fairly and squarely placed where it belongs, upon the Northern Ireland authorities, and not upon you, Sir, Officers of the House or any member of the British Government. The onus belongs there. There is a suspicion that there has been deliberate stalling in the hope that this problem would be incapable of resolution

because the House goes into recess tomorrow. We have been fighting against the passage of time, and I am delighted that even at this late stage—almost the eleventh hour on the Thursday before the recess—we have taken away from the Ministry of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland the figleaf it was using to cover its nakedness in the form of the Home Office memorandum of 14th or 15th July.
I suggest that it is important to establish publicly that there can be no justification for any suspicion of collusion between any officials in the Home Office in this country and those in the Ministry of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland. I understand that the Leader of the House will be chairman of the Committee of Privileges. May I request that that Committee should meet as soon as possible? It does not have to wait until the House comes back after the recess. I understand that, if it chose, it could meet next week. It could meet during the recess, and I suggest that some of these matters are sufficiently urgent for that to be considered.
As to the point about special treatment, I suggest that if there were a brain surgeon in prison whose services were specially desired, arrangements would be made for him to be released temporarily to perform an important function. Similarly—and this is particularly pertinent after the incident earlier today—if an explosives expert were in prison and his services became vital to the community, no doubt arrangements would be made for his temporary release on parole or in custody.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite interjected a while ago that there are precedents in other matters. There are also precedents for prisoners to be permitted to leave gaol temporarily to get married. If that is possible, it would not be unreasonable to show respect for the British House of Commons and allow a prisoner temporary leave in order that he or she might be sworn in as a Member in this House.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Perhaps I might draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that one of the reasons why the hon. Lady is in prison is that she had been making explosive devices.

Mr. Latham: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's interjection, although it will prolong my speech. There is a great deal of misconception about this. If the hon. Gentleman has contributed to it, I am sure that he has done so inadvertently and not as one in full possession of the facts. I have a copy of the appeal judgment, which I will gladly lend him. That makes it quite clear that the offence of which the hon. Lady was convicted, rightly or wrongly, was that of incitement to riot. It was clearly established that she was not responsible for throwing any petrol bomb. That is the rumour which has been spread. She was guilty of throwing two things: first, some fruity words and, secondly, a stone which fell well short of the police in the confrontation which occurred—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, we must not retry the case.

Mr. Latham: I am leaving the point, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will appreciate that I made those observations only as a result of the interjection by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster).

Mr. Stanley Orme: A few moments ago, my hon. Friend exonerated the British Home Office from any collusion. Will he not agree that he has been a little sweeping in his remarks and that this issue should be investigated fully by the Committee of Privileges? My hon. Friend is not in possession of all the facts relating to this matter, and I do not think that he should be quite as sweeping in making that point.

Mr. Latham: When my hon. Friend comes to read my remarks, I think he will find that I said that the Committee of Privileges should seek to establish that there was no justification for any suspicion of colusion. I am not exonerating anyone. I am saying that it is important that this should be investigated to establish that there was no colusion. I do not deny the possibility that the investigation may find otherwise, though I sincerely hope not.
I want to emphasise that we are not asking for the special treatment of Members of Parliament. But they have duties and obligations which are different from those of ordinary citizens, and they should have the necessary facilities to exercise those functions and be able to

discharge those responsibilities as far as possible.
I hope that the report from the Committee of Privileges will be as comprehensive as is humanely possible so that we cannot in any instance in the future find ourselves subjected to the series of absurdities which have arisen in this matter over the past three weeks.
I conclude by expressing the hope and the request that the Committee will meet very soon; will report very soon; that this House will have an opportunity to debate this report in the very near future; and that, although it is being asked to deal with it in very general terms, it will pay detailed attention to all the issues which have arisen, not only of vital interest to the House but of important public concern.

3.1 a.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) has put before us matters of very grave concern to the whole House and has done so, except for the odd moment when he was perhaps subject to temptation, with a moderation of language which I hope I shall match.
The hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) is not present. It is her case which has given rise to the Motion before us and which we have to consider.
I do not propose, in her absence, to make any kind of attack on her. I would reserve anything I might have to say about her behaviour until such time as she is here. [Interruption.]

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: It is not in order to wander around an hon. Gentleman when he is addressing the Chair. Captain Orr.

Captain Orr: I do not intend to make any attack on the hon. Lady for Mid-Ulster in her absence because I would prefer to wait until such time as she is here in her place in the House and to address anything to her in the House.
I would prefer, looking at the matter from a party political point of view, that she were here now. I have always believed that her presence in the House and everything she has said here was to the advantage of my party and the things


in which I believe. I would infinitely prefer that she were here for another reason, that it would deprive her of the aura of martyrdom which is being created around her.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: You should not have arrested her.

Captain Orr: I did not arrest her.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has not seen fit to address us earlier, because I had hoped to have the privilege of following him. I wanted the opportunity of congratulating him on his elevation to the stratosphere of the Front Bench and on his 57th birthday and on the new moderation which speaking from the Despatch Box might have induced.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Whistling in the dark.

Captain Orr: The question we are considering goes—and here at least the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and I might be in accord, though in nothing else—rather deeper than the hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject might have suggested. Underlying the whole subject that we are now discussing is the ancient dilemma—over which preside the ghosts of Wilkes and Bradlaugh, and even cases far beyond them in history—between the right of this House to determine its membership and the kind of people who shall be its Members, on the one hand, and the right of constituents to decide who shall represent them, on the other.
My right hon. Friend will tell me whether I am right or wrong, but I thought that the drafting of the Motion did not fully take into account the right of Parliament itself. It may be that the way that the Motion is drafted will not prevent the Committee of Privileges looking at the right of Parliament in the matter.
The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) spoke of two rights: the right of the Member and the right of the constituents. But he forgot the third right—the right of Parliament—[Interruption.] I do not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman about the order, but at least the right of Parliament ought to be considered, and it is not specifically mentioned in the Motion.

Mr. Latham: I should like to point out, without going into great detail, that one matter that has been exercising my hon. Friends and me during the past three weeks is the right of Parliament to make inquiries of a responsible Minister about one of its Members imprisoned in Northern Ireland. I am as concerned as the hon. Gentleman about the rights of Parliament in the general sense. I wish that I had had his support in pressing for a reply on that particular point as well.

Captain Orr: I am talking in terms of the right of Parliament to determine who shall be Members. I will come to the hon. Gentleman's point later.
Before coming to the general question, I should like to make one comment only on the case of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster. If she were present I do not think that she would dissent from what I am about to say. One of the rights which hon. Gentlemen opposite have sought to establish for the hon. Lady is that even though she be in prison as a result of a criminal charge, she ought to be permitted to come to this House to take the oath. I do not think that I am misrepresenting what hon. Gentlemen have been trying to achieve.
It might not be unfair to remind the House, if it needs reminding—particularly hon. Members who have recently come in—what the hon. Lady has said about the taking of the oath in her book. This is the copy that she presented to the House. The hon. Lady said:
Basically I am against the British Parliament anyway, and I perjured myself by taking the Oath of Allegiance to the British Queen. At the time the maiden speech seemed important. But what I would have liked to do was swear my allegiance to the common people and have a Socialist Government throw me out.
That is what the hon. Lady wrote.

Mr. Heffer: She took the oath.

Captain Orr: Yes, she did. The hon. Lady has always been frank. I am sure that she would not attempt to deny or put a gloss on those words if she were here. I have no doubt that to some hon. Members, I believe the minority, the Oath of Allegiance is a pure formality, a ritual which is, to them, unmeaning and without significance.
This all raises the question whether the Committee of Privileges should pronounce


on this issue. Is the oath or affirmation something totally empty? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If it is, it is surely time for the Committee to suggest that it is no longer necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never."] At least let us be consistent. I see the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale smiling. Shades of Bradlaugh, of course. But either the oath or affirmation is considered by hon. Members to be meaningful or it is an empty formality, which is time wasting—it consumes two long days at the beginning of every Parliament—and should be done away with. One way or the other. The House should not connive at an open mockery of the oath.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is making an extremely interesting speech, and perhaps some time the Committee of Privileges could discuss whether the oath we take is suitable in modern times. At this juncture, however, we are discussing the Motion, which is about the rights of an hon. Member who is in prison and the need for her to come here to take the oath. Although the hon. and gallant Gentleman is raising some interesting points, they are totally irrelevant to this debate.

Captain Orr: I fancy that most of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends would disagree with him. They have sought to establish, as one of the rights of the hon. Lady who is in prison, her right to take the oath. What I am saying is, therefore, within the competence of the Committee of Privileges—

Mr. Heffer: Whatever view the hon. Lady has about taking the oath, she came to the Bar of the House on the previous occasion and took the oath. [Interruption.] How she felt about it is of no importance. I dare say that many hon. Members have felt the same over the years but have taken the oath all the same. It does not matter whether some have been honest and have confessed their feelings and others have not. The hon. Lady took the oath. We are now considering how she can take the oath now so that she may carry out her duties to her constituents and have the rights of an hon. Member on behalf of her constituents. That is the whole basis of the argument.

Captain Orr: The hon. Member has not got the point yet. The point is: how does he or any hon. Member know

whether the hon. Lady, if she were brought here, would take the oath? She said in her book that she regretted it and would have preferred to have done something else. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have listened to one side of the case without interruption. We must be fair to each other.

Captain Orr: If the hon. Lady came here it is at least open to doubt whether she would take the oath; we do not know. If in the case of the hon. Lady the oath is an empty formality, it is something which the Committee of Privileges should look at as to whether one can base a case of parliamentary privilege on a person coming from prison, if one is imprisoned, to take an oath which may be an empty and useless formality. This is something which I think the Committee of Privileges could rightly be asked to look at.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Am I not right in suggesting that the argument my hon. and gallant Friend is putting is that if a person were found guilty of sedition or treason, felony, clearly that person would not be able to take the oath? Is he not saying that this is substantially the same? If you are found guilty of incitement to not in circumstances where you are not prepared to accept Her Majesty the Queen, you are virtually—[Interruption.] I am addressing my hon. and gallant Friend. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) must control himself. It would assist the debate if hon. Members were allowed to make their own speeches—

Mr. Rees-Davies: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: —and if interventions were brief.

Mr. Rees-Davies: My intervention was brief until I was interrupted. Are not the facts here that my hon. and gallant Friend is suggesting that someone guilty of sedition or felony could not take the oath?

Captain Orr: I think my hon. Friend is right, but I suggest that it would be easier if I were to make my own speech


and not have many interruptions. I was dealing with what I thought a preliminary point in dealing with the particular case of the hon. Lady and I wanted to come to the substance of what I want to say on the Motion.
One of the very ancient privileges of this House, which is almost as old as Parliament itself, is freedom from arrest. It is one of our most ancient privileges which you, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of every Parliament lay claim to on our behalf. But there have always been very important exceptions. Even from the earliest times there have been exceptions to the ancient privilege of freedom from arrest. They are found, for example, in Lark's case in 1429. Freedom from arrest was claimed except for treason, felony and breach of the peace. In the case which the hon. Member for Paddington, North probably knows well, Thorpe's case, the judges made precisely the same exception. The Resolution of the House of Commons of 1675 said that
by the laws and usage of Parliament privilege of Parliament belongs to every Member of the House of Commons in all cases except treason, felony or breach of the peace.
It was not until 1831 that by the laws and usage of Parliament privilege was extended to exclude all indictable offences, but there has always been the distinction in the mind of Parliament, related in this case to the question of freedom from arrest, but also related to the other subject of expulsion, about certain offences against the law.
The House of Commons has always from the earliest days set its face against those of its Members who break the law. After all, Parliament is supposed to uphold the law which Parliament itself makes. Parliament has always felt it necessary to say that those of its Members who break the law—particularly those who break the law in these three areas of treason, felony or breach of the peace—should not continue to be Members.
It is therefore right that the Committee of Privileges should consider not only the questions raised by the hon. Member for Paddington, North, though I think it is proper that Parliament should consider those, but also the whole question of how it behaves towards one of its Members who is convicted of a serious crime.
Up to very recent times Members of Parliament who were convicted of felony were automatically expelled from the House. I remember, as many hon. Members here will remember, the case of Mr. Peter Baker who was convicted of forgery and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. There was no question about it at any time but that the Leader of the House would rise and move that he be expelled from the House. He was. [Interruption.] It is said that that case is a bit different. I am not arguing about the particular case of the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is one privilege that I thought we were all agreed about and that is the right of a Member to take part in a debate freely.

Mr. Rose: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that there is a very special point in this case with which he has not dealt and which is the crux of the issue. Here we are dealing with a subordinate Parliament which itself has laws some of which are regarded as abhorrent in this Parliament. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman relate this to the specific case where a Member may be guilty of a violation of a law passed not by this Parliament but by another Parliament in another part of the United Kingdom?

Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the law of the Parliament of Northern Ireland has the sanction of this House.

Mr. Orme: A political charge.

Captain Orr: It rests upon an Act passed by this House. I suggest that that is a diversion from what I have been saying. I have been discussing the rights of the House of Commons. One of the fundamental rights of the House of Commons is to have some say in whom it shall have as its Members. This House of Commons has always said from early times that it should not lightly regard any of its Members who break the law, and a distinction has always been made. The old distinction was between felony and misdemeanour. As the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale knows, this gave rise—

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Garry Allighan.

Captain Orr: Long before that case. I was thinking of John Winston Bradlaugh. That case gave rise to immense difficulties. I profoundly hope that had I been in the House in the days of Bradlaugh I would have been on the side of Bradlaugh rather than Cardinal Manning. I think that the House of Commons then made itself look ridiculous, and I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that we do not want to make ourselves look ridiculous over this case, or any case which may arise afterwards.
But there is another way in which the House of Commons could make itself look equally ridiculous. It would do that if it totally ignored the crime, whatever it might be, of which one of its Members was convicted; if it said that the House of Commons itself is going to take no account of it; that all it is going to be concerned about are the actual rights of the Member who has been convicted of an offence, or the rights of the constituents, but it is not going to consider at all the gravity of the crime which has been committed, or the fitness of the Member to remain in the House of Commons, or the rights of the community as a whole, because the maintenance of law is one of the fundamental rights of the community as a whole.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Go to Londonderry. I was there. I saw what happened.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) really must contain himself.

Captain Orr: The House of Commons has the power to expel an hon. Member. The trouble over Bradlaugh was that when the Member was expelled the constituency re-elected him and the House of Commons made itself look ridiculous by refusing then to admit the Member. What I should like the Committee of Privileges to look at—its terms of reference are sufficient for this purpose—is whether the proper course for the House of Commons to take in the future is that the Committee of Privileges should decide and recommend to us what categories of criminal offences the House considers sufficient to take serious notice of. There is obviously a distinction to

be drawn between a parking offence and homicide.
The House of Commons having decided that, it ought then to decide—and this one I would like the Committee of consider—what is going to happen to a Member whose crime falls within the serious category. What I suggest the Committee of Privileges might well find is that in future anyone who commits a crime in the serious category should be subject to a Motion for expulsion.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Convicted by a Northern Ireland court?

Captain Orr: After that the constituency itself should have the right, in the light of the knowledge of the opinion of the House of Commons, and in the light of the knowledge of the crime, to re-elect the Member if it wished, following which the House of Commons, having expressed its view, would bow to the wishes of the constituency.

Mr. Orme: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. Interventions prolong speeches.

Mr Orme: I understand that, Mr. Speaker, but we are likely to be here for a considerable time anyway. To English Members the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion is reasonable, but he ought to put this in the context of Northern Ireland politics and what has happened to the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). It is about that, and the manner in which the courts have acted, that we are concerned.

Captain Orr: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman does himself or his cause any justice by attacking the courts in Northern Ireland or anywhere else.

Mr. Tom Driberg: They are fanatical and corrupt.

Captain Orr: Now the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Northern Ireland courts are corrupt. I am not prepared to debate that. We are talking about something which is serious, and I suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they do not do their cause any good by making party political comments about the courts in Northern Ireland or the state of the law in Northern Ireland. It is the law of this kingdom.

Mr. Rose: It is not.

Captain Orr: It is the law of this kingdom, derived from the authority of an Act of Parliament passed by this House. If we say in the House of Commons that we will not uphold that law, it is a poor day indeed for the future of law and order in this country.
I have spoken about what I think are the rights of the House of Commons. I would go a very long way with the hon. Gentleman in saying that the Committee of Privileges ought to look at what may or may not be the rights of Members who may be in prison, not subject to expulsion. There are difficulties. The hon. Gentleman read out a description of the conditions under which the hon. Lady at present in prison is permitted to carry out certain duties as a Member of Parliament. I wonder whether he had fully appreciated that what has happened has been an act of an executive Government. It may not be sufficient, he would wish them to go further, but it is an act of an executive Government. It is not a privilege which has been claimed by Parliament.
Parliament has never in the past claimed a privilege for any of its Members who were in prison. Parliament could not claim such a privilege because we in the House are debarred from extending Parliamentary privilege. In effect, what hon. Members opposite are asking is that the privileges of Parliament, which Parliament cannot extend, ought to be extended by act of the Executive. I doubt that the Committee of Privileges would be prepared to recommend that Parliament should claim an extension of its privileges.

Mr. Latham: I shall be brief, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman has provoked me to intervene on two points. First, I point out that the facilities given to the hon. Lady in the first instance are said to be those which would be given to any businessman in winding up his affairs. So there has been no special claim there. Second, on the question of procedure and the opportunity for the electors to express a view, the conviction took place during the last Parliament, and there was subsequently the General Election, at which 37,000 people returned the hon. Lady as Member for Mid-Ulster, on a 90 per cent. poll in the constituency.

Is not that of some significance on the question of representing her constituents?

Captain Orr: On the latter point, I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can square what he has just said with the phrase he used about constituents being deprived, through no fault of their own, of the service of their Member of Parliament. The constituents of the hon. Lady in Mid-Ulster would have known very well that this could well have been a possibility. What I am saying—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The purpose of the debate is to take the views of the House. Interruptions prolong speeches.

Captain Orr: At the time of the election, it is true, the hon. Lady had been convicted. An appeal was pending. The appeal was not decided until after the election. I am not making a judgment as to whether the crime of which she was convicted was necessarily of the gravity which would have demanded expulsion. But let us suppose that it was. What I suggest is that the House of Commons might have used its power of expulsion, there might then have been a by-election, and the constituents, in full light of the knowledge that the hon. Lady had been convicted of a serious crime, would then have been able to make up their mind, after which, I suggest, it would be consonant with the dignity of the House of Commons then to admit her if elected That is all I am suggesting.
I have forgotten the hon. Gentleman's first point. At any rate, I was simply going to tell him that I went a long way with him in common humanity, in feeling for constituents, in believing that in the cases where a Member is incarcerated on a charge which the House did not think sufficient to warrant expulsion arrangements might well be made for business to be carried out. What I said was that the House cannot extend its privileges. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the hon. Lady was receiving no more privileges than a businessman might to carry out his business. But if he looks at the document again he will see that the Ministry of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland has created a special category, allowing a privilege to a Member of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman asked that it should be extended further, that


the person should be permitted to come to take the oath. A similar privilege would not be given to others. A businessman would not be given the privileges of being taken to attend a place of business, although he might be given the facilities to conduct it through visits or anything else. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall have no more interruptions. We want to hear the views of many hon. Members.

Captain Orr: I want to finish. I have taken a long time, but I have been interrupted an awful lot.
I do not necessarily dissent from the hon. Gentleman. All I am saying is that the Committee of Privileges should look at the question of whether the House of Commons itself has power to extend its privileges or whether we should ask the Executive, either in Northern Ireland or here, to give a privilege to Members of Parliament which would not be open to members of the public. I think that it would be wrong so to do. But I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. Although the Motion appears to me to be slightly defective in wording, I believe that it is possible for the Committee of Privileges to consider the position of Parliament and the rights of Members, and, therefore, I for one will support it.

3.39 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Perhaps I may start by getting the House to agree on a more passive note. I think that we all agree that the Leader of the House has shown particular care for the House and Members in the manner in which he has dealt with this subject. He has not only been a House of Commons man but has really looked after the interests of the House in the matter. My hon. Friends have nothing but the utmost praise for him.
Equally, I think that even those that jeered and sneered at the beginning will, on reflection, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham), whether or not they agree with what he said and the many times he said it. He has certainly been persistent and consistent in putting forward the views that he honestly and sincerely holds. That he has perhaps appeared to some to be somewhat boring in fact proves how

successful he has been, because it is the man who is continuously pressing something that he believes that is accused of being the bore by those that are not with him.

Mr. Iremonger: I can speak only for myself, but it may be that I speak also for my hon. Friends. It was not a matter of what the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) said and least of all any derogation of the importance of the subject, his right to say it and the rest of it. It was the manner in which he did it. It was a little pharisaical and sanctimonious, we thought.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member is entitled to his view. All I am saying is that, as Mr. Speaker said, hon. Members ought not to sit and jeer and sneer because they do not agree with what is said. They ought not to have carped at what was said by a new Member, as they did. I leave it there and come to more controversial comments about the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr).
This is a general Motion with particular reference to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). The hon. and gallant Member spoke about Parliament, its power and its privilege. An hon. Member may go to Spain or Moscow and there fight for freedom and democracy, as recently happened in Czechoslovakia, and anyone here would regard that as right—it might be East Berlin. There might be a fracas and a few stones might be thrown and even, allegedly, a fire bomb. Far from being criticised, such an hon. Member would be regarded as a patriot and as standing up for freedom and democracy. But under the so-called law of those countries, such a Member could be arrested and imprisoned for throwing stones and bombs. No doubt the House of Commons would then be up in arms demanding that the Foreign Secretary should get that Member out of prison.
That is the analogy which many of my hon. Friends are drawing, because they have no confidence in the Northern Ireland Government and they do not regard it as an honest decent Administration. Many hon. Members have nothing but contempt for the Northern Ireland Administration.

Mr. Michael Fidler: Is not the hon. Member ignoring that Northern Ireland law has the sanction of this Parliament whereas in Russia and Spain the law does not have the sanction of a parliament?

Mr. Lewis: In that case, I draw the analogy with the developing countries which were former colonies of ours and where exactly the same sort of thing has happened. These countries, with constitutions given by Westminster, have taken action against British citizens which we condemn.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: The hon. Gentleman is not the first person in the debate to attack bitterly the foundation of the Northern Ireland judicial system. Is he not aware that the Court of Appeal judge who heard this case is the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, who was a Law Lord of this Parliament before becoming Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland? The hon. Member is therefore criticising the legal system of this country.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member must read HANSARD and he will see that I did not pass any word in favour of or critical of Northern Ireland. I said that many of my hon. Friends had nothing but contempt for Northern Ireland.

An Hon. Member: Shame.

Mr. Lewis: All right. Then I went on to say that hon. Members opposite might regret that but it was a fact. Rightly or wrongly they have cause for this. They claim that they have seen enough going on which satisfies them that Northern Ireland is not a free, democratic country such as our own—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a little from the terms of the Motion. If he would be so good as to relate his remarks to the terms of the Motion he will be in order.

Mr. Lewis: I was only following the points raised by hon. Members opposite, but I will leave it there.
Everyone knows that if a person is put into prison, for whatever reason, there is an automatic feeling that he must be bad, or that there must be something against him, or he would not be in

prison. We had this in the House in relation to a very honourable Member. I refer to the case of Mr. Will Owen, the former Member for Morpeth. He may have been silly and stupid but under the law he has been exonerated, so he must be innocent.
Here is a case even more shocking than the Mid-Ulster case. I tried hard to raise it here but could not because the law of sub judice was invoked on every possible occasion. Here was an hon. Member who had nothing against him at any time during his life, not one black mark. The then Government conveniently did their dirty work during the recess because they knew that the House could not query it. The then Attorney-General claimed that he had enough evidence to warrant the arrest of an hon. Member. What happened? He was arrested, put in jail for two months, without trial and there was not a murmur in this House.
I tried to raise it a dozen times. Eventually, I got it past the Table, in one of those cleverly-worded Motions that do not say anything about the hon. Member. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was the only Member who signed it with me, and I thank him for it.
The hon. Member in question was put in prison and kept under arrest for two months without trial. He was suffering from failing eyesight. He had heart trouble. Then, after long drawn out proceedings which the legal profession is noted for—talk about productivity; the legal profession should get going on that—he was taken to court and was found completely innocent. During the whole of this time he was not allowed to contact hon. Members. He was not allowed to do his correspondence. He had taken the oath. From that day to this there has been no apology. There has never been any question of the House saying that it had done that man wrong. Whatever people may think, he is an innocent man. He was very shabbily treated by his comrades in the House.
If that could happen to one man, it could happen to another. Certain Members are liked and others are disliked. Those who like to have a go on unpopular things can be marked. I should not like to think that, because I had upset someone, I could be arrested and


kept in prison for two months without trial, have all the worry of that and then find that I have to resign my seat. When mud is thrown, some of it will stick. I should not like to have a slur on me for the rest of my life.

Mr. John Gorst: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that what he is saying has absolutely no relevance to the question of the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) since the person the hon. Gentleman is talking about had resigned his seat. If the hon. Lady were to resign her seat, that would make the comparison proper.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. When this person was arrested and put in gaol he had not resigned his seat; he was a Member of Parliament. When pressure was put on him he resigned his seat, but that was after the damage had been done, after the knife had been stuck in and had been turned and salt rubbed in the wound. Then, I agree, he gave up. Perhaps, in those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman would have given up.

Mr. Iremonger: What my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) said might or might not be right, but there was a precisely parallel case which cuts across what the hon. Gentleman says. An hon. and learned Member, having been arrested, was in prison for many months before he was tried. It would be very difficult if hon. Members were to be exempt from being kept in custody.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member misses the point. It could happen as a result of suspicion during a recess. It could happen at any time. There are a hundred and one ways of doing it. I suggest that it was the same with the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster. The Westminster Government and the Government of Northern Ireland could have arranged for the hon. Lady to come here to take the oath. If she came here and took the oath, if she then decided not to go back but to stay in the precincts here, she might well be covered by privilege with the result that she did not go back. For this reason, it might be said to be as well not to give her the chance to come.
I can quote a somewhat similar case. For two years I put a number of Questions to the President of the Board of Trade asking him to take action in what I termed the Bloom fiasco. The Board of Trade dodged it but eventually took action. This is another case which the Committee of Privileges might consider, first concerning the shocking delay on the part of the law and the legal profession, and the terrific waste of money in so-called legal fees.
Eventually, the Bloom case went on. It involved another good Member of the House—he was not of my party, although the other one was. Richard Reader Harris was not arrested but he was kept "on ice" for two years. He could not carry out his parliamentary duties properly. He was not able to put Questions. Technically, I suppose, he could have done, but he was tipped off privately and kindly—I am not saying unkindly—by being told, "The best plan, you know, Mr. Reader Harris, is not to come in too often. Do not put Questions De not take part in debate." For almost two years that man was virtually barred from coming here and his constituents were disfranchised. Not a thing was done about it.
Again, I tried to put Questions and ask why the committal proceedings took so long. My legal friends, on both sides of the House, said that there was nothing in the case and it should not have proceeded further. Nevertheless, it went on and on. After two years he, too, was found not guilty. In the meantime, the poor devil had not only had all the mud, slosh and all that against him, but he lost his seat into the bargain and he is probably now in the position of never being able to get another. This, too, should be looked at.
If an hon. Member takes an active part against the Executive and their representatives, the machine or the Establishment, they get to dislike the hon. Member, and the hon. Member may one day make a slip. They say, "We will get him. We will have him." I know that this is the case. There are certain hon. Members who are on the marked list, and whenever they are in trouble, they will really be in trouble. There are other hon. Members who are not reckoned to be the awkard ones. They, of course, are not on the black list and they are all


right. It might well be that the Committee of Privileges should look at that sort of matter, because we owe a debt to Richard Reader Harris. I think the House should try to do something about it.
My last word is that if we looked at these three cases—and I think each is worth looking at—and tried to deal with them fairly, we should have done a good job for House of Commons and a good job for democracy.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: When I first saw this Motion on the Order Paper I had some grave doubts about its real value, and I confess that as this debate has proceeded nothing has happened to make me feel any more relaxed about the wisdom of discussing this subject at this time, because I really do wonder what is the merit of drawing ground rules, which is what we are seeking to do, for circumstances which might arise should Members of this House be detained in prison. Surely one of the great things about this House is that it does not tend to reach its decisions on bases of hypothesis, but surely that is, basically, what we are being asked to do here this night. I agree that at the back of everybody's mind there is a particular case, a particular person, yes; but that is not what is set down here in the Motion. We are seeking to lay out wider grounds, and I have very considerable anxiety on that point.
Of course one acknowledges that it is undesirable that the electorate of a constituency should be disfranchised. We all accept this. But are we really not in grave danger of setting up for ourselves the very machinery—I suppose that is the word—which we here condemn when it is set up anywhere else? I mean simply this, that the House of Commons has a great knack, a great habit, of reaching its highest point when it is discussing itself, or, alternatively, perhaps plummeting to its lowest depths. I cannot help feeling that we are in danger of doing it on this sort of Motion, because we are seeking, whether consciously or not—indeed, probably quite unwittingly—to put ourselves in a position which could give the general public cause to accuse us of seeking a privileged position for our Members. It is a terrible danger.

It is not what we here think that really matters: it is the impression on the general public outside of what we are doing.
Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—if I may paraphrase him, and I hope I paraphrase aright—made it quite clear that the Executive had no standing in the case of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), and everyone agreed that that was right and how it should be, and that non-interference by the Executive with the machinery of the Legislature is one of the pillars of British democracy. But there is another pillar of British democracy, and that is the Judiciary, and noninterference with that, but that is something which has tended to creep into our discussions today. Some, in my view, disgraceful smears have been made against the Judiciary of Northern Ireland. O.K.—the law may be slightly different in certain respects, but if I were to go up Whitehall, or anywhere else in England, and throw stones or petrol bombs I should be charged, and rightly so, with a criminal offence and be imprisoned if I were found guilty of the charge. We are not talking here about minor differences which may exist between the law in Northern Ireland and the law in this country. We are talking about common offences and criminal offences which would be treated in exactly the same way in any part of the United Kingdom.
During the recent General Election the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, whose views and political aspirations I cannot be said to share, by her own actions precluded herself from attending this House. Nobody has done this for her, and during her election campaign she was frequently reported as making light of the possibility that she would go to gaol shortly after the election, win or lose. The House is working itself into a great lather about something which the person concerned has not expressed such anxieties about—

Mr. Rose: Many hon. Members are concerned about a general principle, irrespective of the hon. Member involved. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an hon. Member representing an English constituency could be imprisoned in Northern Ireland and be subject to the


Northern Ireland Home Secretary? The British Home Secretary would have no jurisdiction, and the Member of Parliament would be imprisoned in a foreign country within the boundary of the United Kingdom. This is the basic principle which this case has brought to light.

Mr. Pounder: I do not accept the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose). Nevertheless, there is another point in his argument. If at some future date any Member of Parliament gets into certain difficulties—and this is the basis of my criticism of the Motion—there is great danger in working out an answer on the basis of hypothetical situations. The chances of a similar case arising to the one occupying our thoughts tonight are remote. I have always thought that one of the features of the Committee of Privileges was that it took cases as they arose and did not draw up blanket regulations.
It is of fundamental importance to realise that when a person is sentenced for a criminal offence the rules must be exactly the same whether or not he be a Member of Parliament. Under no circumstances must we even contemplate action, let alone take action, on the concept that a Member of Parliament is in a special category.
I conclude with the words of the Belfast Telegraph leading article on the evening of 22nd July:
The case of Miss Bernadette Devlin is unique and so it is not surprising that it is creating such difficulties. Much of the fuss is being manufactured for political purposes.

4.8 a.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I hope that the whole House will applaud the generous initiative taken by the Leader of the House in promoting this Motion, in his own words, for the protection of minorities and even a minority of one in this House, and I add to that, irrespective of what any of us may feel about the actions or the character of the hon. Lady who happens to be the source of the initiative. For that reason I regret all the more the way in which that generous initiative has been followed up, particularly by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and perhaps to an unnecessary extent by

the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder), who totally misses the point in saying that the public will think that we are seeking to create extra privileges for our own Members. That is not the position.
I had the privilege of being Chairman of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege which recommended that many of our privileges should be curtailed and qualified, but the one thing that Committee was quite clear about was that it was essential that those privileges of Members of Parliament which are necessary to enable them to perform their functions as such should be preserved. This is the real dilemma which we are in and which the Committee of Privileges is being asked to consider. It arises as a result of an hon. Member being punished according to the law and, at the same time, the right of that hon. Member's constituents to be represented here in Parliament as well as it is possible for them to be represented in those circumstances. That is the dilemma which has to be resolved, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for taking that initiative.
A great many difficulties have to be surmounted, and I pointed to a number of them when I raised a point of order in this House. I drew attention to the fact that Erskine May says that an hon. Member who has not taken the oath is nonetheless entitled to a great many of the privileges of Members of this House.
I hope that the Leader of the House will forgive me if I make one or two criticisms of his Motion. I hope that I do so in a constructive spirit because, in a sense, this is a precedent for what we might have to consider as a House on future occasions.
My first criticism relates to the terms of reference and the point that I have just made. As I see it, the difficulty which has arisen in this case is twofold. First, the hon. Member is in prison. As we have heard, that has happened on other occasions One hopes that it will not happen often to hon. Members, but obviously it is not unique. The other difficulty, to which the Motion does not refer, is that, because of the unique circumstances of the case, the hon. Member has been unable to take the oath. I still have hopes, even at this late hour,


that we may see the hon. Member at the Bar of the House before we rise for the Summer Recess and that, in her case, that difficulty may be resolved. I still have some faith in the generosity of the Northern Ireland Government. But that remains to be seen.
Whether that happens or not, the fact remains that the situation could occur again, not merely because an hon. Member is in prison but for some quite different reason. A serious illness might keep an hon. Member confined to his bed, perhaps for a long time, during which he is perfectly capable of carrying out all the duties of a Member of Parliament except that of attendance at the House. That is a situation which is analogous to that of the hon. Lady, and it is one which I hope that the Select Committee will feel itself able to consider, even though it is not within its precise terms of reference.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. and learned Gentleman is more expert in these matters than I, but I think that he will agree that, as the Motion is drawn, the rights of an hon. Member who is in prison and who has not taken the oath are covered. It talks about the rights of any hon. Member
who may be detained in one of Her Majesty's Prisons …".
However, when the hon. and learned Gentleman refers to the wider point about taking the oath in general, that is a separate matter. I would not rule out the possibility that at some future stage the whole question of taking the oath might be referred to the Committee of Privileges, but the issue with which we are concerned tonight is not quite that.

Mr. Silkin: I was not pursuing quite that point. I doubt whether we ought to spend time on the point about taking the oath here. What I am saying is that, according to Erskine May and according to the Ruling which Mr. Speaker gave the other day, there are certain disabilities which flow from not having been able to take the oath. I hope the Select Committee will be able to consider whether those disabilities should continue to the full or whether a limit should be imposed on them by the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866.
Having dealt with the terms of reference, I should like to say a word or two

about the body to which this matter is referred: the Committee of Privileges. I have certain doubts and reservations about that. The Committee is a body whose normal duties are to consider specific allegations of contempt or breach of privilege. It deals with specific matters, whereas here it is being asked to deal with a general question.
In the past, as far as I have understood, general questions of this kind have been referred to an ad hoc Committee as on the Official Secrets Act and on Parliamentary Privilege, which is the closest analogy to this case that one could find.
There are good reasons for that. The Committee consists of extremely busy and important hon. Members of the House and may at any time be called on to deal with a specific case of alleged breach of privilege. One wonders what would happen, because these cases are sometimes urgent and sometimes take a long time, as one did last Session.
Suppose a case were to come up in October or early November. It might mean that this matter would have to be deferred for a long time while the Committee was dealing with the specific case.
A further point which concerns me is that the Committee of Privileges bases its decisions on precedent, whereas what is desired in this case is not a decision on what the precedents are but rather a decision on what the position ought to be in future. This is a matter which can be much better attended to by an ad hoc Committee such as the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege.
There is a further matter which hon. Members may possibly think not so important, but which I hope is not entirely fanciful. Members of the Committee of Privileges are people of great experience and authority in this House. They are weighty people, what I call Establishment people, and although we are dealing here with a general question, it springs from what has happened to, I think, the youngest of our hon. Members, a young student who has been held to have been convicted of an offence, but who, none the less, is a person who belongs to a particular group of people who will not be necessarily persuaded of the wisdom of the decisions of a body of Establishment figures. I would have liked to see some hon. Members who could not be


regarded as Establishment figures on this Select Committee, possibly my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), if he has not joined the Establishment.

Hon. Members: The hon. Member has.

Mr. Silkin: If not my hon. Friend, there are several others of whom hon. Members could think. I think that a body more representative of the whole spectrum of this House would carry more authority with the general public over this matter than a body like the Committee of Privileges.
These are matters which I realise will not be affected by the remarks that I have made. It is clear that the Motion will go through. At least, I hope that it will. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman took the course which was likely to produce the greatest expedition. I do not blame him for that. However, I hope that the criticisms that I have made will be considered for the future and that, whatever may be the result of this important inquiry, on future occasions, should matters of this kind have to be considered, the Leader of the House will consider a different body more appropriate to be called upon to make the inquiry.

4.21 a.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) said that he thought that the Motion would be accepted by the House. I am afraid that he is right. I wish that he were not. I am opposed to the Motion, and I hope that the House will bear with me while I explain why I do not think that the problem which the Motion is designed to meet—and it is a real problem—is a matter of privilege at all.
It is totally misconceived to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges. The Leader of the House said that there were matters to be clarified and that there were areas of doubt. I think that there is no doubt whatsoever. I am surprised that so many right hon. and hon. Members find any doubt in the matter. It is perfectly clear. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain On), with great precision and authority, told us exactly what was clear—namely, that hon. Members are not

protected from the criminal law by the privilege of Parliament. It must therefore follow, as the night the day, that they are not protected from the consequences of breaches of the law by the privilege of Parliament.
The only effect of referring this question to the Committe of Privileges is to delay a decision, and delay in the case of Miss Devlin makes the whole process fatuous. I hope that the House will forgive me if I refer to the Lady as Miss Devlin. I do not think that, although elected, she is an hon. Member of this House, because she has not taken the oath. I submit that this matter is not one of privilege for the House; it is a matter of Government policy. It is most certainly a matter for the House, because it is a matter in which the House should instruct the Government—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On the point about the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) not being the Member for Mid-Ulster, I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Surely once a Member is elected, he or she is the Member until such time as he or she applies for the Chiltern Hundreds or until such time as there is an election. Indeed, he or she does not have to attend the House in the whole period or take the oath. Therefore, the hon. Lady is still the Member for Mid-Ulster until she applies for the Chiltern Hundreds or until there is an election.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I had better give a ruling on this matter. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) in indeed the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster.

Mr. Iremonger: The House is grateful for that Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it would be wrong for me to debate the matter. We are also grateful to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) for raising the issue.
I was saying that this is not a matter of privilege but a matter of Government policy, of Executive action. That policy and action should flow from the direction of this House. The issue is complicated in this case by the fact that the hon. Lady is in prison in Ulster and not in a prison which is subject to the direct jurisdiction of the Home Secretary. If the latter were the case—or, in Scotland, where she would be subject to the direct


jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for Scotland—the matter would be comparatively simple.
I suggest that anybody in such a position could be dealt with in a way that I shall describe. If an hon. Member is in a prison and is subject to a Minister who is answerable in this House, that hon. Member should be allowed—under the present rules which allow prisoners to get married, attend a grand-mother's funeral and so on—to come to this House to take the oath. It would then be for the House to consider, if it wished, whether or not to debate a motion to expel that hon. Member, following which he or she would be either expelled or not expelled.

Mr. John Mendelson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Iremonger: There is nothing to stop such a Motion being moved—[Interruption.]—and I would do so.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman could do it now.

Mr. Iremonger: I do not know whether such a Motion would be accepted by the Table. I do not believe that it would be in the case of an hon. Member who had not yet taken the oath.
Leaving that aside, it would be accepted if such an hon. Member had taken the oath, in which case a motion could be moved, and it would be up to hon. Members either to accept or to reject it. If the hon. Member were expelled, no problem would arise by virtue of his or her being in prison. If the hon. Member were not expelled, it would then seem a matter of simple administration for the Home Secretary to ensure that arrangements were made which were suitable in the interests of the House and the hon. Member's constituents.
In the case of Ulster—or, for that matter, the Isle of Man—it would seem that the appropriate course would be for the Government, not through a motion being referred to the Committee of Privileges, to have legislation saying, in effect, that, whether or not he or she had taken the oath, once an hon. Members was elected to this House, he or she should be transferred to a prison subject to the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary.
It would be wise for the Northern Ireland Government, although this might

not make them popular with many of their supporters, to be a little generous in this matter and bring Miss Devlin here to be sworn. Then it would be for this House to decide whether or not to expel her. I hope that when she has taken the oath a Motion will be moved for her expulsion. There will no doubt be arguments for and against such a Motion, but let the matter be argued openly in this House. It will then be for the electors of Mid-Ulster to decide whom they wish to represent them. It seems that a lot of bother has been made about this, and, with respect to the Leader of the House, I, and I alone, think him mistaken.

4.30 a.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: The whole House owes a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) for raising a particularly important constitutional issue and the Leader of the House has displayed a great deal of generosity and patience on this matter.
I cannot say the same of the Home Secretary, whose persistent absence from the whole of our deliberations on this matter is remarkable in view of the fact that the Home Office was so deeply implicated. I am sorry that the Home Secretary has not seen fit to be here on this occasion. One vital constitutional issue has to be dealt with. It arises from this case, but it has a general application.
It so happens that one of the privileges which hon. Members may have to seek in reference to a period of imprisonment is the place in which they serve that imprisonment. The peculiar factor about this case is that the place of imprisonment is in a particular part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland. Therefore, decision on the amenities allowed to the hon. Member involved are not made by this Parliament and not under the rules laid down by this Parliament or this Home Office, but by the Home Office of another Parliament, Stormont.
This Parliament, unfortunately it would seem, is given no right in regard to the rights of that hon. Member. It seems important that when the Committee of Privileges deals with this problem it should say specifically that this Parliament will decide the code of conduct in regard to persons in prison which will apply whether they are imprisoned in


this part of the United Kingdom or in that part which for the time being is known as Northern Ireland.
The problem we face in this House because of a peculiar convention—a convention which I submit is not above the rule of law and is challengeable—is that in this House we are not able to ask Questions of the Home Secretary concerning conditions of a person imprisoned in Northern Ireland. As I said when the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) was speaking, this may happen to a Member who is not a Northern Ireland Member. It may happen that the Leader of the House is on holiday in Northern Ireland and finds himself arrested for a driving offence and in prison in Northern Ireland.
Perhaps the Leader of the House will listen while I describe the predicament in which he could find himself. He would be in a prison in Northern Ireland, and I would not be able to ask Questions of the Home Secretary with a view to extricating him from that predicament, because he would be under the jurisdiction of an entirely different authority. He would be in exactly the same position as if he were imprisoned in Italy, France or some other country where he had gone for a holiday.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Is that actually so? Is it not the case that the rules governing the treatment of prisoners in prisons of Northern Ireland are modelled on rules obtaining in Britain and that they are practically identical?

Mr. Rose: If the hon. Member had been here when my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North was speaking on this point—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I was here.

Mr. Rose: —he would have heard the rules laid down specifically on this case and applicable to this case. Those rules were laid down not in Westminster but by the authorities in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Member found himself in this difficulty of being imprisoned in Northern Ireland, he would find that the rules, whether modelled on other rules or not, were under the jurisdiction not of the Home Secretary here but of the Home Secretary in Northern Ireland. His hon. Friends and hon. Members on this side

who were concerned about his welfare, as we all would be, would be placed in the intolerable situation that we could not inquire in the House about the position of one of our honourable colleagues imprisoned in a part of the United Kingdom. This is the intolerable dilemma with which we are faced because of this case, which has brought to light this constitutional anomaly that to all intents and purposes someone imprisoned in Northern Ireland, even from an English, a Welsh or a Scottish constituency, would be subject to that jurisdiction and would be as outside the law as regards questioning in this Parliament as somebody imprisoned in a foreign country.
The contrary applies. If a Northern Ireland Member were sentenced and imprisoned in Britain—in the past Irishmen have been imprisoned in Britain—he would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary. It is ridiculous and anomalous that there are two separate sets of justice according to whether a person is imprisoned in Northern Ireland or in this part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way a second time. I have been here throughout the whole debate and have heard the speech of the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham). As I understand it, the rules laid down for the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), to which the hon. Member for Paddington, North has referred, are the British rules for cases of this kind which have been made more liberal for the benefit of the hon. Lady.

Mr. Rose: My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North is here, but, as I understand it, initially the hon. Lady was not permitted to carry out the constituency engagements which she was elected to carry out. It was only after a certain intervention—we are grateful to my hon. Friend for this—and pressures which were brought to bear on the Home Secretary and pressure which in turn the Home Secretary brought to bear upon the Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland that more generous treatment of the hon. Lady was allowed by the Northern Ireland authorities.
The whole point of establishing a committee to deal with the matter is to lay down a standard code of conduct with


regard to Members who are in this situation. The constitutional anomaly here is vitally important. This is what arises from this case. Because of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which delegated responsibility in home affairs to the Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, we are faced with an intolerable situation which cannot be allowed to continue. This convention died a long time ago. In debate after debate under Standing Order No. 9 we have ranged over the whole field of Northern Ireland affairs. We have discussed in detail matters which have been delegated under the 1920 Act. I should have thought that the House now had the power to inquire into what went on in Northern Ireland.
However, suddenly we find that we are back into the position of five years ago and we have to accept a Ruling by Mr. Speaker of a week or two ago, under which it is once again impossible for us to seek information about matters under the jurisdiction of subordinate Ministers in Northern Ireland where powers have been devolved upon them under the 1920 Act. This is intolerable.

Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman is erecting a very great constitutional difficulty out of something which might be quite readily resolved. He is talking as if a person imprisoned in Northern Ireland would not have the possibility of transfer to a prison anywhere else within the United Kingdom. It is perfectly open to the hon. Lady to apply for a transfer, say, to Holloway.

Mr. Rose: I am most interested in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion, but what are the implications of it? To do that would make a mockery of the present situation. It would mean that there were two sets of jurisdiction in one country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying that by making this application, which would have to be dealt with by the Northern Ireland Home Secretary, the hon. Lady could then place herself within the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary here, and then Questions could be asked here, if the Northern Ireland Home Secretary agreed. Surely that shows the inane, foolish and curious position with which we are faced? A person imprisoned under the laws of Northern Ireland, or any other part of the United Kingdom, can find himself under a completely

different jurisdiction according to the place at which he happens to be imprisoned at a particular time.
The situation shows that the convention which is being observed again, it seems, in this place is a convention which should not be observed. It is an outdated convention. It is a convention which has been overtaken by events. We have a situation where a large number of British troops are in Northern Ireland, where the Northern Ireland Government are incapable of keeping law and order without them, and where the Northern Ireland Government are incapable of governing that province without the direct subsidy and interference of and support from Westminster.
This case highlights that what must be looked at by the Committee of Privileges is the specific problem of the 1920 Act and the convention, and whether we are going to allow to continue a situation whereby if an hon. Member happens by accident to find himself imprisoned in Northern Ireland he cannot be under the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary here, and he cannot be protected by this House, because that is what has happened. Such a Member is removed from the protection of the House and of his colleagues. It could happen to any hon. Member from Northern Ireland, or indeed to any of us who visited that part of the United Kingdom for a holiday or for any other reason.
I submit that the Committee of Privileges must deal specifically with this problem of the convention and advise the House whether the convention, in so far as it applies to the Home Secretary's jurisdiction over prisons, should continue to apply. It should look specifically into what is clearly an anomaly in our system whereby a person convicted and imprisoned in a part of the United Kingdom is to all intents and purposes a foreigner as far as the House of Commons is concerned, the only difference being that instead of the Foreign Secretary having to inquire, the Home Secretary has to inquire about his or her condition.

4.43 a.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I do not wish to detain the House for long. I should like to deal briefly with one or two of the points raised by


the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose).
I hope that when this matter is referred to the Committee of Privileges the Committee will not waste its time considering what are and what are not the proper reserve powers of the Northern Ireland Government. The question to be referred to the Committee is a great deal wider than that which concerns the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), and although a great deal of time during this debate and in the days leading up to it has been spent considering her case, much more fundamental matters than her rights are involved. The difficulty which Parliament is considering arises from the abolition of the ancient distinction between felonies and misdemeanours, and this is the matter which the Committee must consider.
In spite of what the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) said, the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster has been convicted of a very serious offence, and I remind him that when I intervened in his speech earlier on I was not alleging that she had thrown petrol bombs. I was saying that she had been engaged in making petrol bombs. She herself admitted it, and photographs of her making petrol bombs appeared in a Dublin magazine.
A person who does that, and who incites fellow citizens to riot of a most vicious nature, is, I submit, not a proper person to be a Member of the House. Therefore, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), who feels that this person should be expelled from the House.

Mr. Iremonger: I would not have presumed to go further than to say that a Motion should be moved that she be expelled, and that it would be for the House to deal with it.

Mr. McMaster: I am sorry. I took it from the tenor of my hon. Friend's remarks that, if he did not say so, at least he implied that he was in favour of her being dealt with in that fashion. I would certainly go so far as to say that any person who has been convicted by a court of this country of a serious offence of that nature—not just a minor offence like a motoring offence or something of that order—is no longer a

suitable person to represent a constituency in this Parliament.
We have been listening to what has appeared to me to be something of a pantomime. Earlier today, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) suggested that Mr. Speaker should rule on whether the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster would be allowed to take the oath if she came to the House. It was implied by the hon. Gentleman, and said by his hon. Friends, that the decision on whether she could take the oath should decide whether the hon. Lady should be sent here. The hon. Gentleman has the whole thing upside down.
If the House wants convicted criminals to come here and take the oath, it is within its power to extend privilege to Members in that fashion, and a Resolution should be passed saying that all convicted Members who have not taken the oath should be brought to the Bar so that they may take the oath. Why do not hon. Members opposite make such a proposal if that is what they want?
The duty of the Home Secretary in this affair and of the prison governor is clear: it is to keep the person in prison until his or her sentence has been served. It is not their duty, irrespective of whether Mr. Speaker would allow such Members to take the oath, to bring them to the Bar of the House. Their duty is simply to keep them in prison until they have.

Mr. Latham: The point should be re-emphasised, if the hon. Gentleman has not got it yet, that the reason why there has been agitation in the House on the question of the taking of the oath is that the Northern Ireland Minister of Home Affairs, when he received a deputation on Monday last, shielded behind a message from the Home Office which purported to be an authorised ruling from this House that if the Member were to come she would not then be permitted to be sworn in. The pantomime has not occurred here. It has occurred at Stormont, where the Ministry has sought to make it appear as though it was not its responsibility but that the issue did not arise because, so it was claimed, there was no point in the hon. Member arriving here.
We have exposed that pantomime in the past week and put the onus and


responsibility where it lies. That is why the matter is being pursued, because of a deliberate attempt by the Minister of Home Affairs in Ulster to shield behind a piece of paper and deny his own responsibility.

Mr. McMaster: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened, because his intervention helps me to put the record as straight as I can. The ruling was given early in July by the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland that the hon. Lady would not be brought across here to take the oath. This was the decision he gave then, and he has stuck to it since. This was long before any advice was sought from the Home Office.
I am well aware that the House is particularly concerned not so much with the hon. Lady or any other hon. Member who is in prison but with that person's constituents and their rights. But there are two well-established principles of English law of which the hon. Gentleman may be aware. One is summed up in the legal phrase, volenti non fit injuria. Perhaps even more apposite is the expression caveat emptor—"Let the buyer beware." The constituents of the hon. Lady knew very well on polling day that she had been convicted of a criminal offence. Her appeal had been heard and they only awaited the decision of the Court of Appeal. They must reasonably be assumed to have considered the possibility that she might be kept in prison, and, therefore, at least for six months be unable to represent them. To that extent, the case made tonight is not very sound.

4.52 a.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I wish to join first in the expressions of gratitude to the Leader of the House. He was already universally respected in the House, and every week since the new Parliament assembled he has added to his reputation. In deciding that we should have this Motion tonight he has eased a situation which would otherwise have been much more explosive. I do not say that there have not been any explosions in any case, but they would have been much more violent if he had not had the wisdom to suggest that there would be a Motion of this character

under which we could debate the case of the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) as well as putting it in its proper context. So the House owes a great debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman. He is a good Minister in a naughty Administration. As we look across from this side, his candle glows amid the encircling gloom. We hope that it will be quite a time before he is permanently extinguished. I do not wish by any of those remarks to detract from the gratitude I express towards him.
It would also be extremely generous if some hon. Members opposite complimented my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) on the way in which he has presented the issue to the House both today and on previous occasions. They have not done it so far, though the right hon. Gentleman has. The House of Commons always owes a great deal to Members of Parliament who show the diligence to inquire into matters which originally appear abstruse in order to bring information to the House which otherwise it would not have had. My hon. Friend has shown that he is already a formidable Member. Hon. Members opposite would be wise in their own interests to recognise that and not to resort to some of the sneers they attempted to use to put him off his stroke, fortunately without success. Therefore, we owe a debt to him, as well as to the Leader of the House, for this debate.
I should like to make one other preliminary comment about the debate before coming to some of the issues of substance which are involved. I have much sympathy with the point of view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) when he suggests that it might have been better to have had a Select Committee rather than the Committee of Privileges to deal with the subject. I believe that partly for the reasons which he has stated, but also because we shall underline, as he did, that in this debate we are not seeking in any sense to suggest that Members of Parliament should have privileges which are denied to members of the public. In the Committee on which I have sat under the chairmanship of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich, we proposed changes in


the whole law of privilege affecting Parliament, changes would have the effect of putting Members of Parliament in many respects in the same position as other citizens of the land. We think that that would be a development in a proper direction.
Having sat on a Committee which may suggest recommendations such as that, we have some qualms about proposing that matters in this way should be referred to the Committee of Privileges, particularly when the privilege is in rather dubious circumstances. A Committee of the House has proposed that the whole nature of the Committee of Privileges should be altered, and for more than two years we have been seeking to get this recommendation carried into effect. While those recommendations are not carried into effect, it may be wrong to say that the Committee of Privileges itself is under suspicion, but it is a body whose status has not been accepted by hon. Members who inquired into it.
For that reason, it would have been better if this matter had been referred to the House rather than to the Committee of Privileges, particularly when, as the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said, it is one of the principles of privilege under which we operate that the House of Commons has no power to extend its privileges. It is a novel question that is being referred to the Committee of Privileges in the sense that it is being called upon not to judge any particular event which has occurred but to make recommendations of a more general character. This is a qualification of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
However, I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman had good reason for thinking in these circumstances that this was the only way in which he could proceed. Therefore, it may be of advantage to any hon. Member who wishes to leave the Chamber if I say I am authorised to say that we do not propose to vote against the Motion. I hope that the stampede will not be of such a character as we saw a little earlier in the proceedings!
Having shown the sweet reasonableness which the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South properly attributed to

me as my natural characteristic, I propose to come to more controversial aspects of the matter. The Ruling by Mr. Speaker today was one of extreme importance. We wanted the Government to clarify the situation in precisely the way that several of us have been seeking to have it clarified ever since this question of the document became a matter of debate. The argument of some of us all along, that the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster should be permitted to come to the House, was nothing to do with the Rulings laid down by Mr. Speaker today.
We have contested this from the very beginning. Some of us have argued from the beginning that the question of whether the hon. Lady could come to the Bar of the House to have this question of her swearing in considered was entirely one in the decision of the Government of Northern Ireland, and our complaint against that Government, about which I will say something further in a moment, is that they were making the wrong decision about the matter. This issue was confused for quite a period because people said: "No, it depends on whether she would be able to be sworn if she ever got here." Much confusion prevailed on that. We have now clarified that.
We have now clarified it in exactly the sense that the right hon. Gentleman used in our discussions, that this was a matter entirely within the province of the Northern Ireland Government. It is for them to decide whether the hon. Lady should be permitted to come to this House. The right hon. Gentleman said so on Wednesday in clear terms, and it was his statement that was further confirmed, if that is the proper term, by Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Whitelaw: indicated assent.

Mr. Foot: That is a victory for those of us who have put this argument right from the beginning of proceedings. I am glad to have the acknowledgment of the right hon. Gentleman because the more he nods his head in acceptance of what I am saying the deeper is the mud into which he plunges the Home Secretary.

Mr. Whitelaw: indicated dissent.

Mr. Foot: The more the right hon. Gentleman says that I am confirmed by Mr. Speaker in saying that this is entirely a question to be decided by the Government of Northern Ireland, quite irrespective of the question of whether she would be sworn in here if she got here, the more he says that the greater is the difficulty that arises from the communications that were sent by the Home Secretary to the Government of Northern Ireland.
This is one aspect of the matter which must be probed by the Committee of Privileges: the question of the communications between the Home Secretary and the Government of Northern Ireland, particularly because it is the Home Secretary who is responsible for all discussions with the Northern Ireland Government on such matters. This matter is of paramount importance. The right hon. Gentleman insisted and won the sympathy of the House by saying that we cannot have the Executive interfering with the rights of Parliament, but that is exactly what the Home Secretary has done. All that has still to be established at this point is exactly the terms in which he did it. We want to know what was stated in the memorandum of 14th July—a strange day for him to send this anti-liberterian missive. What was included in the "Bastille Bulletin", signed by the Home Secretary, to the Government of Northern Ireland?
The Committee of Privileges will need to have this document before it. In my opinion this document should have been presented to the House. Certainly the letter sent prior to 21st July, which drew the response from the Clerk of the House, presumably with the authorisation of Mr. Speaker, must be presented to the Committee, as I submitted yesterday that the document should have been presented to the House. It is an extraordinary situation when, on this matter which has been discussed in the House on seven or eight occasions in the past three weeks, we should have had, during that period, exchanges between the Home Secretary and the Northern Ireland Government. It is only by accident that we have been able to discover what they may mean, and we have only had half of it. What is the use of the position where we have had the answer given by the Clerk of the House to an official of the Home

Office but we do not know the request made by the Home Office? What was the nature of the request?
All these matters will have to be investigated by the Committee of Privileges, and extremely interesting it will be. The Leader of the House must not think that this matter can be overlooked. He knows very well that a report of the Committee comes back to this House, and, being an extremely libertarian Leader of the House, he would not think for a moment of trying to prevent a debate on the report of his own Committee of Privileges.
Therefore, if the Committee of Privileges did not explore this matter fully and present all the documents, then when the matter came before us we would have to examine the conduct of the Home Secretary. Part of the scandal of this affair is that the Home Secretary has used his powers improperly to do exactly what the Leader of the House said no Government should do—that is, to pretend that they had standing in matters of this kind when they had not.
We accept to the full the doctrine stated by the Leader of the House, and the more we accept it, the stronger is the indictment against the Home Secretary. This is one aspect which we hope will be resolved, because never again following this case will a Home Secretary think that he has the power to interfere in these questions of Parliamentary Privilege.
I come to some of the other questions which the Committee of Privileges will have to consider. A Member of Parliament in prison can be required to attend this House. That was what happened in the case of Lord Cochrane, to which I referred in the House the other day—the precedent of 1815, which has been overlooked to some degree. On one occasion he was required to come from prison to attend this House, but on another occasion he came of his own skill and initiative. Both cases are apposite. His offence was supposed to be just as criminal as that alleged against the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster. So determined was the Parliament of those days to ensure that people who had been attacked or criticised should have the chance to defend themselves that even though he had arrived


here on the second occasion in circumstances which might be considered improper, the Speaker insisted that he should have the right to state his case to hon. Members. So that that case will have to be considered by the Committee of Privileges, too.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman finds the reference to this matter in the records of the House—either in the Journals or in the report of our proceedings of the time. Surely what happened when Lord Cochrane arrived here, having escaped from King's Bench Prison, was that he was immediately, or almost immediately, returned to the prison.

Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman examines the facts, he will see that I am right. There were two occasions when Lord Cochrane came to the House, but on the second occasion he went to the Clerk's office to see if he could be sworn in there. That was not agreed, but the Speaker insisted—and there was no precedent; in those days Speakers believed that they could act even if there was no precedent; they acted in a commonsensical manner—that Lord Cochrane should have the right to present his case, which he did.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: If the hon. Gentleman says that he has found this information in the Journals of the House or in some authoritative history of the time, I will at once accept it; but I have not been able to find it.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman will find it in two or three of the biographies of Lords Cochrane and it was referred to in some of the records of the House. I do not think we should quarrel about it.
What is the position of a Member of this House in prison who is attacked in this House? The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, who started his speech by saying that, of course—as an officer and a gentleman, no doubt—he would not attack the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster in her absence, proceeded to accuse her of perjury, treason and felonies of every kind. He then went on to suggest that what we should really be considering was whether the hon. Lady should be expelled from the House. The hon. Member for Belfast,

East (Mr. McMaster) said that the great question for us to consider is whether a person who has been convicted of such an offence as that of which the hon. Lady has been held to be guilty should ever be allowed to sit in the House of Commons.
Nobody who has listened to the speeches of Members from Northern Ireland on the Government side of the House today could by any stretch of the imagination suggest that they have carefully refrained from attacking the hon. Lady in any way. It is no attack, apparently, to accuse her of perjury. "Ah", they say—

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: rose—

Mr. Foot: I am coming to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark). I would not miss him out by any mischance or oversight. All of them, jumping up with the book in their hand. Said, "Ah, we are only quoting what she says in her own book." It is quite a habit in this House to attack people by quoting them. It has been done before. What I am saying is that, particularly on grave matters of this kind, an hon. Member who is attacked in that way has the right to defend himself. He should not be attacked unless he has that right.
The hon. Member for Londonderry has a special obligation in this matter. He has not merely been doing it in support of his hon. Friends here today. He did it on the first occasion, on the Friday, immediately after the first debate on Northern Ireland. He attacked the hon. Lady then. I do not know whether he notified her that he would make the attack. I do not know whether he notified the governor of the prison that he proposed, when he came to the House, to attack her, but that was what he did. I do not need to quote the words. The hon. Members accused the hon. Lady of taking the kind of actions which stirred up fears and hatreds in Northern Ireland. That was a political attack.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South and all the other Members from Northern Ireland on the Government side should either take steps to ensure that the hon. Lady is brought here to defend herself, or they should keep quiet about it. Some of us remember very well the


debates that we had on these matters when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster was not here. We remember how these Unionist lions roared in her absence and how these frightened lambs scampered away when she was here. We saw them stamping out of the Chamber because they could not stand it any longer. One of the reasons why I deplore the hon. Lady's imprisonment is that one of the happiest spectacles I have seen in the House is the hon. Lady using the lash of her tongue across these Members from Northern Ireland, who have participated regularly in our debates only since the hon. Lady came here.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Member's fifty-seventh birthday has already been referred to. I fear that he is suffering from lack of memory. I ask him, in all sincerity, since he referred to that speech of mine at the start of this Parliament, in the debate on the Queen's speech, in justice, at some point—not at this moment—to take that speech, read the whole of it and see whether I was fair.

Mr. Foot: It would be somewhat tiresome if I read the whole of the hon. Member's speech, but I am certainly prepared to quote the exact words, if that is what he wants me to do. Does the hon. Gentleman complain if I read out the words—the exact reference?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Not in the very least, but I think that if the hon. Gentleman will look at that speech, and it may be that he can recall it, he will see that virtually the larger part of it was devoted to an attack on another hon. Member, who was here, and to whom I had given notice. My mere reference to the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) was simply to say that she, in my view, represented those things of which I spoke, but that I was not going to attack her.

Mr. Foot: Of course the hon. Gentle-had a perfect right to attack the hon. Member for Antrim, North (the Rev. Ian Paisley). I know there was some confusion a little while ago about Antrim, North and Down, South. I do not know whether that arose because of those who sign the candidatures in Northern Ireland, but I am glad to make that distinction. However, the hon. Gentleman

was, of course, perfectly entitled to attack the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
All I am saying to the hon. Member, though, and it is a serious question, is that the hon. Gentleman had no right to attack the hon. Lady in her absence—unless, of course, he had made representations to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland to try to see whether the hon. Lady could be brought here. We have been told by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Down, South that he is in favour of that, that the hon. Lady should have been brought here. I do not know whether he has the support of the hon. Member for Londonderry in making such representations to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, but I must say that in the absence of having made such representations, or, at any rate, such successful representations, I think the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should refrain from attacking the hon. Lady here.
I think they should club together, make common representations, which could be published in the Northern Ireland papers—the Belfast Telegraph, I think, is the journal: but at any rate let them all sign a letter saying that at all through these days of anxious debate what they have been seeking to do has been to ensure that the hon. Lady should be brought to the Bar, and what a disappointment it is to them that their desires have not carried any weight with the Stormont Government. We talk about hypocrisy. I must say that if the hon. and gallant Member for Down. South was really so eager that the hon. Lady should come here I think he should have made his representations a little earlier than the very last moment when they could possibly have been effective.

Mr. McMaster: I am much enjoying the hon. Gentleman's vigorous speech, but I think he must admit that during this debate many people have been criticised, including Mr. Speaker and the Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland. We are considering whether the hon. Lady should be brought here to take the oath, and it is a relevant matter not only whether, if she came, Mr. Speaker would allow her to take the oath, but what offence she has committed, and whether, on grounds of security, and for such reasons, it is right that the risk


should be taken of bringing her here. It is impossible to discuss these things without saying something of the offence she committed.

Mr. Foot: What I was complaining about was that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South said he was not going to make an attack on the hon. Lady and then proceeded to do so, and this attack, even on the single basis of a quotation from the book—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. Member is not intending to be discourteous—indeed, I am sure he is not—but some of his remarks ought to be more manifestly addressed in this direction.

Mr. Foot: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is always very difficult to know where the hon. Members for Northern Ireland are to be found. I apologise for having been led astray in that sense.
What I am saying to hon. Gentlemen opposite seriously is that before they ever embark again on such a studied series of attacks upon an hon. Member of this House they should take some account of what are the normal courtesies, and of what may, indeed, be questions which the Committee of Privileges would wish to consider. It is indeed a matter of courtesy to inform hon. Members when an attack is to be made on them here, and I must say that in the case of an hon. Member in prison these matters should be very carefully considered, particularly when suggestions are to be made, as they have been by two or three hon. Members opposite, including most specifically the hon. Member who has just spoken that the question of expulsion is to be considered. The only proper way of considering the hon. Lady's expulsion is for hon. Members to put down a Motion. There is nothing in the rules of the House against it. If hon. Members think that she has committed a crime of such a character that she should be expelled from the House, they should have the courage to put down such a Motion and have it debated in the House and see what are the consequences.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman's histrionics are entertaining, but will he deny that the hon. Member in question has been convicted in a court of law of a criminal offence?

Mr. Foot: I understand the point about the criminal offence; it is a matter to be considered in the debate, and I will come to it in a moment. I am saying that if hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to press that matter to the point of saying that the hon. Lady should be expelled, which is what some of them have said in their speeches, they could put down a Motion for debate. It is neither advantageous nor satisfactory for the proper conduct of business in this House that loose charges about expulsion should be flung around by hon. Members who have not had the guts to put such a Motion on the Order Paper, as they are perfectly entitled to do under the laws of the House.

Mr. Iremonger: I think that the question of the hon. Lady's expulsion should be considered by the House, but surely the Motion should not be tabled until she has taken the oath, and certainly not until she is here.

Mr. Foot: I have no doubt that one reason why hon. Members have not the guts to put down such a Motion is that they know that the common sense and fairness of the House would insist that the hon. Lady should be brought here, whatever might be said by the Government of Northern Ireland. Of course they do not want to do that. They are very wise from their point of view not to have her here to make a speech, because she would have exploded their case. In exploding their case the hon. Lady would have been perfectly entitled to consider, in so far as the laws of the House allow it, the state of the law and the circumstances in Northern Ireland.
There is a difference between the way in which the law is operated in Northern Ireland and the way it is operated in this country. The Statutes prove it. All our debates of a few months ago about the Ulster Defence Regiment and the special powers prove it. The conditions are different there, so different that there had to be an entire reshaping of the police forces and the defence forces in Northern Ireland and the introduction of troops to preserve law and order. That is part of the hon. Lady's case. That is why she says she had to take steps to assist in defending people in the Bogside area.
I am not trying to argue that case now; I am saying that it is relevant. I will not argue the case as to how she was tried, except to say in passing that some of us think that the way in which she was treated by the Appeal Court was outrageous. Some of us, once we have disposed of these matters, propose to take the step of dealing with the matter in the only way that is proper in the House of Commons, by putting down a Motion criticising the action of the judge in refusing a certificate for appeal to the House of Lords. Many of us think that that is one of the factors which contributed greatly to the difficulties of the situation.

Captain Orr: Is the hon. Gentleman speaking for the Opposition?

Mr. Foot: Perhaps I might refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his hon. Friends to the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on 2nd July. They do not refer directly to the appeal for the certificate to the House of Lords, but they embrace that. My right hon. Friend asked:
did the right hon. Gentleman or the Home Secretary represent to that Government"—
Stormont—
in view of our responsibility through the forces of the Crown for law and order, that the Northern Ireland Government should remit that sentence? Did they make that representation and, if they did, what answer did they get? If the Northern Ireland Government rejected it, what did the Government do?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd 1970; Vol. 803, c. 63.]
Those were the questions asked by my right hon. Friend in the first debate that we had on this matter directly relating to the imprisonment of the hon. Lady. The Secretary of State for the Home Department has made no answer to those questions to this day. That is another part of my indictment of the behaviour of the Home Secretary in these matters, because I believe that he should have answered my right hon. Friend when he put those questions, just as I believe he is called upon to answer the questions which I posed earlier arising from the way in which Parliament has had some of its powers usurped by the Executive.

Mr. McMaster: If the hon. Lady was dissatisfied with the refusal of the Court

of Appeal in Northern Ireland to grant her leave to appeal to the House of Lords, why did not she apply to the House of Lords for leave?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman does not understand the law. Unfortunately, under the changed situation of the law, she had no power to make such an application to the House of Lords. The decision as to whether she could appeal to the House of Lords rested entirely with the judge in the appeal court. That is the position, and it is one of the positions that I call outrageous. It is one of the reasons why some of us will seek the only remedy for that situation, which is by a special Motion. If the hon. Gentleman examines the facts, he will discover that I am correct. I have taken legal advice about the possibilities open to the hon. Lady. In my opinion, one of the grievances of the whole situation arises from the fact that the hon. Lady was only permitted by a court in Northern Ireland to make an appeal to a Northern Ireland court. She was never allowed to appeal, as she should have been, to the supreme court of this country.

Captain Orr: However, the appeal court is a United Kingdom court.

Mr. Foot: I understand also who were the judges, and I am in favour of putting down such a Motion criticising them. That is the proper way to do it. But some of us thought that we might be able to deal with these matters without resort to that. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked these questions at the beginning of this Session, hoping that the Government of Northern Ireland would remit the sentence, and that representations would be made to the Government of Northern Ireland by the Home Secretary. All these questions were asked by my right hon. Friend.
The Government had a chance. They have had further chances during the whole of the past fortnight when we have been debating these matters. We discover at the end that those who have urged upon the Government in Stormont to allow the hon. Lady to come here now have the support of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South. He thinks that it would be a good idea to


let her come, otherwise she might be made a martyr. The hon. and gallant Gentleman should have raised his powerful voice in Belfast a good deal earlier than this. It will come as news to a lot of people in Belfast that, while some of us have been working in the open to get the hon. Lady permission to come here, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has used his extensive powers and marched in every demonstration to ensure that the hon. Lady should have her rights.
I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman can escape the situation by that kind of thing. There have been occasion after occasion during the last fortnight when it would have been possible for the Government of Northern Ireland to give the hon. Lady a chance to come to the House to see what decision the House would take, and time and again those opportunities have been rejected with one excuse after another, pretending that it was Mr. Speaker; the rules of this House; the advice of the Home Secretary—and maybe he did give bad advice, as has been illustrated; but, above all, they sought to stick it out so that now there is no opportunity for the hon. Lady to come to argue her case for her rights, for what she is able to do in prison to be regulated by this House rather than the conventions and agreements that they have in Northern Ireland.
The Government of Northern Ireland, which have the sole responsibility in this matter, as the Leader of the House agreed yesterday, have acted in a way which merely shows their vindictiveness, their lack of sense in dealing with these explosive matters. It would have been perfectly possible for the Government in Stormont to recognise that an act of magnanimity would have paid them, but in all the past 50 years the Government of Northern Ireland have never been capable of magnanimity. That is the last quality anybody expects from them. Instead, they have always tried to hold in their fists everything they have got, and only by trying to prise off one finger after another have any concessions been wrested from them. Only by that method have we achieved any common decency in the affairs of Northern Ireland.
I say to hon. Members from Northern Ireland, to the Unionist Members and to members of the Orange Order that they cannot be proud of the way their Government have dealt with the situation.
The hon. Lady will return to the House and will be able to put her case better than others can put it for her. For many years to come hon. Gentlemen opposite, associated with whatever branch of the Unionists—in Antrim, North or Down, South—will have to listen to a different voice, a voice which has been so long suppressed and so muffled in that part of Ireland which has never had fair representation in Stormont or in local government, and has never been spoken for by hon. Gentlemen on that side.
What this House has been fighting about is infinitely concerned with asserting that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster has rights equal with the rest of us. We have been fighting to protect them, fighting for the interests of her constituents, but also for the proper conduct of the affairs of this House.
These questions are not being decided by the Home Office, by intervention by subordinate Legislatures; they are questions to be decided by debate and decision in this House of Commons, advised maybe, by the Committee of Privileges.
John Milburn, the famous Leveller, said "What could happen to anyone can happen to everyone". That is the basis of justice in this country; of democracy in this country. We want to see these same ideas imported into the Six Counties. That is what we want to see. It is the efficient fighting of this case which is one of our objectives.
It is said that we have made a particular case a major issue. We do not apologise for that. All the liberties of this country were established round particular cases: Bradlaugh, Wilkes and whoever it might have been. Maybe this will be a famous case too. Despite all the accusations that are made against the hon. Lady, she will be vindicated not only because of her own courage and eloquence, but also because of the unparallelled folly of the Stormont Government.

5.35 a.m.

Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps I might briefly reply to the debate.
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) on his first official speech for the Opposition from the Dispatch Box. We would all note—this is perhaps the interesting part—that it does not seem to


have inhibited him in any way from the normal eloquence that we are used to hearing from him. I hope that he will not mind my saying that he may find that responsibility in time will bring with it some constraint. When he reflects that he is talking officially for the Opposition, he may find a little difficulty in justifying some of the remarks he has made this evening rather away from the Motion. But that is for him, not for me.
Having said that, which I hope the hon. Member will take in good part, I must thank him for the kind personal remarks that he made about me. I also note the remarks of the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham). I do not think that any Minister in any Government can ever complain of any hon. Member on either side who pursues a particular case with great determination. Hon. Members have the right to do so. It is very good for Ministers and for Governments that they do. That is what Members of Parliament on both sides are elected for. We must all recognise this, and I hope that I do.
I note what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said, in concert with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), about the doubtful wisdom of putting this particular general proposition to the Committee of Privileges. I very much appreciate what they said. I hope that I am not wrong, but I recognise that they have made some fair points.
In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich I would make one point. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that it might be very awkward if a particularly urgent case came before the Committee of Privileges in October or November and it was not able to deal with this more general point. If that were to be the case, it would be possible—I say this without any commitment—to discharge the Committee of Privileges from this case, and maybe it would be right to set up some special committee at that stage. I should not like to prejudge it now. I thought that this was the right way to do it. If I am proved wrong, I am prepared to admit that and to see what can be done.
I do not want to comment on many of the issues which have been raised,

because, as a member of the Committee of Privileges, it is important that I should not prejudge any of its discussions. Therefore, I will avoid doing that. Nor do I wish to be drawn into rather more general debates about the situation in Northern Ireland, which certainly, as far as I am concerned, obviously do not come either within my responsibility or, indeed, within the terms of the Motion. I should, however, like to refer to one or two detailed points.
First, I think I should answer my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), who feels, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), that sending this general reference to the Committee of Privileges is wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford. North thought this was a perfectly clear matter with no area of doubt. Having to some extent lived with the problems connected with all of this for the last few weeks, I cannot accept his view.
I have found many matters of doubt and many questions to which I have been unable to find the answers, despite seeking the precedents and the other advice available to me. In many cases the precedents are not there. We must be careful that we are not confining this particular reference to one particular case, nor, indeed, to the issue which has become paramount in many people's minds; that of taking the oath.
Many other matters, besides that of taking the oath, have been raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) was correct in raising the case of Mr. Owen. He went on to raise the case of Mr. Reader Harris, although he was not in prison and does not come within the terms of the Motion. However, Mr. Owen's case certainly does.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Mr. Harris was prevented from carrying out his duties and, thus, his constituents were prevented from having his true representation.

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept that, and I have a good deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said about that case. My only comment on it is that it does not come within the terms of the Motion because he was not actually in prison.
There are, equally, many other matters which it is right to resolve. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North said that all these matters could be resolved by Executive action, action by the Government. I am afraid that this is where I differ from him. Perhaps they could he, but I believe that the rights of an hon. Member of this House must be a matter for the House. That must be the correct doctrine, and, therefore, the House should consider what are the rights.
Many of the rights to which I refer are matters for the House authorities and not matters for the Government. Problems involving receiving Parliamentary papers, putting down Questions and so on must be resolved. If they are clear to my hon. Friend, I am bound to say they are by no means clear to me; and I therefore think it worth-while to have them resolved and I hope that the Committee of Privileges will be able to do that.
The hon. Member for Paddington, North urged that the Committee of Privileges should meet as soon as possible. There are procedural difficulties here. I hope he appreciates that as we are considering a general proposition and not a particular case, the need for haste is not quite so strong. We are looking at a general proposition covering hon. Members in general. It is extremely important, as far as I and the Motion are concerned, to get this firmly in our minds.

Mr. Latham: The point about which I am particularly concerned is that there should be some urgent investigation into what I referred to earlier, which is the maligning of an Officer of this House, which may be found to be unwarranted. My submission on this point—and this goes for several other matters which have arisen out of this incident—is that unless investigations commence immediately, it may be difficult at a later stage to establish adequate evidence on which to make a decision. This is part of the

urgency of the matter. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can find another way of investigating these aspects so that proper reports may be presented to, and prepared by, the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Whitelaw: I must not go beyond what I have said. I have taken advice on this matter and I cannot add to my earlier remarks.
I do not think there are any other matters to which I need now reply. I thank hon. Members who have taken part in the debate and have noted the points they made.

Mr. John Mendelson: I understood that when the right hon. Gentleman agreed to put down this Motion, he thought this was the best method by which this problem could be dealt with. I accept that. As this is the morning of the day after yesterday and he said that the views of the Home Secretary had been communicated to Mr. Porter, the Secretary for Home Affairs, is there any communication which the right hon. Gentleman can give to the House as to the effect? Can he say whether the hon. Lady can appear today, the last opportunity before the recess, to be sworn in?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member more information. As I have sat in this House for about 10 hours, I am afraid that my contacts with the outside world have been not very close.
I hope that with these remarks the House will feel able to pass the Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the matter of the rights of any hon. Member of this House who may be detained in one of Her Majesty's Prisons, and of his or her constituents, be referred to the Committee of Privileges; and that they do consider and report to what extent the privileges of this House require that such a Member should be granted facilities to carry out his parliamentary duties while in prison.

Orders of the Day — FORCES FAMILY PENSION SCHEME

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clegg.]

5.47 a.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for detaining hon. Members at this late hour. I also take the opportunity of thanking the Minister and the staff of the Department for facilitating this debate and apologise to them for having detained them for so long. During the main debate this evening we have been discussing the protection of minorities and a profound issue of social justice. What I now intend to raise is, I think, very much in the spirit of what we discussed earlier.
Service widows' pensions are granted automatically to the widows of retired Service officers and to those other ranks provided: that the marriage took place before the husband's retirement from active service; that the husband died after retirement from active service; that at the time of his death the husband was in receipt of retired pay or a long-service pension granted in respect of his service in the Armed Forces; that the husband's death was not attributed to his service in the Armed Forces or considered to have been accelerated by his service; and in the case of other ranks pensioners only, the pensioner gave service reckonable for pension after 31st August 1950.
We must remember that for other ranks, Armed Forces pensioners' widows are divided into two classes—those whose husbands retired before 1st September, 1950, and those whose husbands retired on or after that date. The first group are not entitled to "ordinary" widows' pensions. The second group are entitled Officers' widows are not so divided. Provided they fulfil certain conditions, they all receive pensions automatically if their husbands die before them. Only one group is debarred. It is for this group that this House should seek justice and equity.
The claim can be put very simply. The pensions granted to officers' widows and the widows of other ranks pensioners who gave service on or after 1st September, 1950, are based on the husband's

rank and length of service. They are, in fact, one-third of the pension which their husbands would have been receiving had they survived, with one modification. A minimum scale is laid down from time to time and even if the husband would have been under 60 and so not entitled to increases under the Pensions Increases Acts these increases are, nevertheless, taken into account in assessing the widow's pension.
The service given by men of the Armed Forces who were discharged to pension before 1st September, 1950, was in every respect at least equal to that given to men who retired on or after that date. Indeed, the service of the older pensioners was frequently more arduous, involving greater hardship in long separation from wives and families, disgracefully poor pay and living conditions and—at least, in the case of naval ratings—no married quarters, no paid passages abroad for wives and families and none of the other amenities which are now accepted as normal.
When these older pensioners retired they did so on pensions which were pitifully small compared to present standards and they were paid no terminal grants at all. Nowadays these grants can amount to as much as £2,340 for naval chief petty officers and to £2,730 for Army and R.A.F. warrant officers class I. They left the Services as a general rule ill-equipped for the competition of civilian life. Most of them were forced to take poorly paid, non-progressive jobs. They were frequently reminded by prospective employers that they had a pension to help them out. They stood little chance of making reasonable provision for their wives if they should die before them. Many of them were forced to commute the maximum permitted amount of their pensions to find sufficient capital to start buying a house in which to live and to furnish it, and so their pensions were reduced even more.
All these men served their country in one world war, many in two. They willingly gave the best years of their lives to the service of their country. It is the widows of these older officers who have been told that there is insufficient money available to pay them pensions and at the same time to increase the pensions of those who are already


entitled. The only advice they have been given is to apply to the Department of Social Security for supplementary benefit if they are in dire need, and the only comfort which has been extended to them is the vague but never fulfilled promise that "the matter will be kept constantly under review".
What concerns me is not just the need to do justice to the present widows. While according to the Ministry of Defence there are, at present, about 30,000 widows, there are in the region of 100,000 pensioners still alive whose wives will in the course of time join the ranks of the pre-1950 widows if their husbands die before them. The number of widows involved at any given time will vary, but the general trend must be, towards zero. By the year 2000 there will be very few surviving. It would be sad if the matter were "kept under review" until that date so that at last the problem would have been resolved without the necessity to alter the system at all.
In the meantime, the older widows are dying off every day without justice ever having been done, and the husbands and widows who survive are filled with a sense of injustice and bewilderment that the country to which they gave the best part of their lives can be so indifferent.
At this point it may be worth considering how this situation ever arose. Before, 1952, Service officers' widows had been entitled to pensions provided that certain conditions were fulfilled. One condition was that a means test was applied to the widows. In 1952 the Government considered that a means test was "inappropriate to the middle of the twentieth century". It was also thought that the class distinction between officers' widows and the widows of other ranks pensioners should be removed. So the conditions for officers' widows were revised and widows of other ranks pensioners were brought into the scheme, but there were significant qualifications. One was that no pensioner who had retired before 1st September, 1950, would qualify, whether alive or dead.
At first, the injustice of this rule was not strongly felt. Other ranks pensioners had by their service grown accustomed to the class distinction between officers and men. At the time, this was generally

accepted as inevitable. Those women who were already widows had never expected to get pensions, and it is probable that for many years a large number of them were even unaware that the regulations had been altered. That only widows who at that time became entitled were those whose husbands had retired after 1950 and had died before 1952. So the injustice of the regulation was obscured by circumstances. As time passed and more of the pensioners died, it became more and more apparent, until now it can be seen as a glaring example of had legislation. It must not be allowed to continue in force.
Since 1952 various attempts have been made to persuade the Government of the time to amend the regulations governing Forces Family Ordinary Widows' Pensions. Apart from the minor amendments of 1958 and 1963, however, these rules still stand.
It has been claimed that the regulations introduced in 1952 constituted a new scheme which had to have a commencing date and that 1950 was chosen because at that time a number of other improvements in the pay and conditions of Armed Forces personnel had been made. These included improved pay and pensions—for those still serving, not for those on pension—terminal grants, improved marriage allowances, and so forth. These have been referred to as a "package deal", of which pensions for widows of serving other ranks were only a part.
But so far as pensions were concerned, was this a new scheme? Or was it the modification of the existing scheme of officers' widows' pensions—which had been in force since the reign of Queen Anne—and the extension of these modified conditions to some other ranks? As for the references to "package deal", it is obvious that the extension of entitlement was not made so much in the cause of social justice, but rather as an inducement to recruitment and re-engagement.
It has also been stated that the 1962 Act could not be made retrospective to cover the men who had retired without an expectation of a pension for their widows, should they die before them. It is true, of course, that the husbands of the pre-1950 widows retired without an expectation of a pension for their widows. So did those who retired between


1950 and 1952, and the privates and corporals and sergeants who retired between 1952 and 1963 without sufficient service. Yet their widows receive pensions.
For many years there were men serving together in the Armed Forces, living and working side by side, sharing the same dangers and hardships, holding the same ranks and receiving the same pay. They had contracted to serve for the same time and under the same conditions. These conditions did not include pensions for their widows. Yet, because of the date of their birthdays, or the dates they happened to have joined the Services many years before, the cut-off means pensions for the widows of some, but not for others. To apply the yardstick of "expectation" to some of these men after they had left the Services is quite unjust.
It has also been stated that the object of the 1952 regulations was to remove "certain restrictions and conditions which were thought, and rightly so, to be inappropriate to the middle of the 20th century". Presumably this must refer to the class distinction between the widows of officers and of other ranks, and to the means test then applied to officers' widows. How much more inappropriate is it in 1970 to apply an even more invidious distinction between widows of the same group, and to force the older widows even now to submit to a means test if they are in need?
The actual cost of providing pensions is difficult to estimate. The Armed Forces Pensions Association thinks that about 30s. a week per widow would be a reasonable average, and that this would give a total of about £2·4 million in the first year. It seems, however, that the Ministry's estimate is nearer £3 million. Of course, this would not mean an increase of £2·4 million or £3 million in public expenditure. No doubt many of the widows are already in receipt of supplementary benefit and would lose part or all of it. Some of them might not be able to establish a claim to a pension if they could not produce evidence of eligibility.
It might be suggested that if such is the case there is little point in worrying about these pensions at all. But the essence of the matter is that the money

should be theirs by right, not by a means test, and this is very important, especially to old people, who are prone to regard supplementary benefit as charity. Moreover, it would at last remove the feeling of injustice prevalent amongst the widows and the pensioners who are still alive. This is very important, too. Surely, our sense of compassion and our obligations to those who have served us so valiantly in the past demands that we act quickly to right this wrong before it is too late.

6.0 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kirk): The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) has raised, with his customary eloquence, a problem which is, I freely admit, one of the many anomalies which arise under our present pension system. It is not the first time he has raised it. On 23rd January this year he raised it on the Adjournment under the previous Government and received a reply from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will be altogether surprised if he finds in my reply echoes of the speech which the hon. Member for Sparkbrook made on that occasion. I assure him that I have looked at the problem again, and the fact that I have come to the same conclusion, although my political philosophy is different from that of his hon. Friend, may, perhaps, lead him to believe that there are problems here which are not easy of solution.
I shall begin, as did the hon. Member for Sparkbrook on that occasion, by underlining, lest there be any doubt in the mind of any hon. Member about it, that we are not concerned in this debate with the position of widows whose husbands died as a result of service. The pensions with which this debate is explicitly concerned are awards in respect of the husband's service and not pensions payable to the dependants of those whose death is due to service. These latter are known as "attributable" or "war widows" pensions; and the policy on them has, since the beginning of the last war, been the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security. There is no complaint in this field, so far as I know, since all widows, regardless of when or for how long their husbands


served, receive such pensions if the death of their husbands was due to service. We are concerned with a totally different category.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the position is that widows of officers, and, by a curious anomaly, of warrant officers class I, though not of other warrant officers, have had an entitlement to a pension for well over a century, but widows of other ranks were not entitled until the Forces Family Pension Scheme was introduced in 1952. This was all part of a great extension of pension schemes including provision for widows' benefit in the early post-war years. Among them were a number of new or improved occupational schemes which made provision for widows for the first time. The Civil Service scheme was introduced in 1949, and those for local government, the National Health Service and teachers came slightly later.
Each of these schemes had a qualifying date appropriate to the individual circumstances of the particular scheme. I underline that, because ours is not the only case in which there is a qualifying date or where a qualifying date creates anomaly.
None of those schemes gave title to widows of anyone who left public employment before the relevant date, whenever that may have been. There are, therefore, large numbers of Crown employees, quite apart from the Armed Forces, who have no pension beyond what may have been arranged for them privately or under arrangements by which husbands could give up part of their pensions to provide for their widows.
I do not wish to imply that it makes the position of those who come within the category which the hon. Gentleman has raised any more tolerable merely to know that their misfortune is shared with others, but I want to put the matter in perspective by reminding the House that the widows the subject of this debate are by no means an isolated group. They are part of a considerable number similarly placed: for instance, those widows of public servants whose husbands had retired before the qualifying date of their particular scheme, and, indeed, those widows of men whose service was nominally within the qualifying

date but who were unable to afford the necessary lump sum contribution to buy themselves into the scheme, or who died before having the opportunity to contribute. I underline that simply to show that we are not dealing here just with a group of 30,000, or whatever it may be. We are dealing, if we are to deal at all, with a much wider section and one which extends beyond any responsibility which I have as a Service Minister.
It was in the context of those many other improvements in widowhood benefits in all fields that the provision for Service widows' pensions was extended. In fact, the scheme introduced in 1952 was a new one covering both officers and other ranks. The previous scheme for officers and warrant officers class I which had been in existence for many years was in many respects out of date. The pensions were means-tested and there were conditions relating to the difference in age between husband and wife, and to the husband's age on marriage. The pensions took no account of the length of the husband's service other than a minimum period to establish entitlement. They were at a series of flat rates, varying only according to the husband's rank, and the rates had not been improved for many years, although increases had occasionally been given in cases of hardship under successive pensions increase schemes. The scheme had not been revised immediately after the war along with all the other Armed Forces pensions.
An entirely new scheme was therefore devised. I stress that it was entirely new as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that it was merely an adaptation of the existing scheme. It was an entirely new scheme which applied to all ranks and which dispensed with many of the restrictive features of the previous scheme, which were thought to be inappropriate to modern conditions. The new scheme was non-contributory, as with previous widows' and dependants' pensions schemes for the forces.
The new scheme took effect from 1st December, 1952, and, in addition to the widows who would have been entitled under the old scheme it provided entitlement to a pension for widows of other ranks provided that the husbands had completed minimum periods of reckon-able service. These were 22 years for


warrant officers class II and staff sergeants, 27 years for sergeants and 32 years for corporals and below.
In 1958 there was a minor change to provide entitlement to a pension for a widow whose husband died on or after 4th November, 1958 provided he had qualified for a pension—that is, after 22 years' or if he died while serving provided he would have qualified if he had been invalided on the day of his death, namely, after 12 years' service.
At first the pensions, as for officers, were at flat rates varying according to rank, taking no account of length of service, but from 10th December, 1963, service widows' pensions for all ranks have been calculated so that they comprise either one-third of the husband's service pension or a minimum flat rate pension if this is more favourable. In assessing the husband's pension where he dies before reaching age 60 the additions to which he would have been entitled under the various Pensions Increase Measures on his 60th birthday are counted.
Another important feature of the new scheme related to widows of men whose death was attributable to service. Previously a widow could have only one pension, but the new scheme introduced modified Service pensions, usually at half rates but also subject to minimum rates, which could be paid in conjunction with an attributable widow's pension.
I have gone into some detail about this scheme to try to prove the point I made that this was genuinely a new scheme and not merely an adaptation of the previous scheme.
I come to the key point. This new scheme applied only to those widows whose husbands gave service on or after 1st September, 1950. It is this qualifying date that causes the difficulty. If a man was discharged before 1st September, 1950, his widow is ineligible for a pension regardless of his length of service and of the date on which she was widowed. It may seem—and clearly seems to the hon. Gentleman and those who are excluded—that this was an arbitrary date without particular significance. But in fact there were sound and logical reasons for choosing

1st September, 1950, as the qualifying date for entitlement under the new scheme. This date marked the introduction of a new Code of ordinary Service pensions for the Armed Forces drawn up as a result of the post-war pay and pensions review. This review introduced many other improvements in conditions of service, including increases in pay, revised rates of marriage allowance, better careers and opportunities for advancement and cash inducements to re-enlist or to extend periods of engagement. The new pension rates, announced on 3rd July, 1951, the year before this new scheme came into operation, applied to men who had given service beyond 1st September, 1950.
With this new Code of pensions, another entirely new feature was introduced—the lump sum terminal grant to help with resettlement. This philosophy was continued into the Forces Family Pension Scheme, introduced the following year, when gratuities, in addition to the new pensions, were introduced for widows whose husbands died while serving.
It is clear that all these improvements—better careers, re-engagement bounties, increased pay and pensions, terminal grants, widows pensions and gratuities—were the package to which the hon. Gentleman referred, a package specially designed as an incentive for men who would be serving in the future to ensure an increase in the regular strength of the Armed Forces. In this context it can be seen that it was justifiable on grounds both of logic and equity for the extended provision for widows to apply only to men who gave service beyond 1st September 1950.
It is normal practice that changes in occupational pension schemes and indeed any changes in conditions of service of State servants are not applied with unlimited retrospection. It would become an unlimited commitment and cost too much. One has to decide from which date to operate, and the date of 1st September, 1950, was fixed for the reasons I have given.
It may be argued, as the hon. Member has been arguing, that unlimited retrospection should be applied, but this one group cannot be considered in isolation. Here I return to the point that if unlimited


retrospection were applied to this group of widows, inevitably there would be repercussions among other areas of public service pensions where there are significant numbers of widows who are excluded from benefit.

Mr. Judd: Would not the hon. Member agree that there is a fundamental difference between a contributory pension scheme in which contributions are related to the ultimate pension and in which if there is a prospect of a pension increase, contributions will similarly rise, and a non-contributory scheme which is based on service and in which payment is in the form of the service? If that is so, would he deal with the equity and social justice of a situation in which completely different rewards are paid to different people who have served for the same time and in the same conditions?

Mr. Kirk: I know that it is not wholly analogous, but the hon. Gentleman may remember that the contributory scheme introduced after the war provided that a man approaching the end of his service had to buy his way into the scheme at a cost which many of them could not afford. One can see that there is a parallel. If this form of retrospection were allowed, almost certainly there would understandably be demands from other public service widows for their case to be considered in the same way, and this would open the door much wider than the 30,000, or however many it is

—for we are not absolutely certain of the number—with whom we are specifically concerned this morning.
I have looked at this problem with great sympathy and I have read the report of the previous debate, but those considerations have led me to believe that I should not alter the date. I wish that I could, but I do not believe that it is possible.
The overall cost is difficult to estimate, but the hon. Gentleman's figures are about right and the cost would be £21½ million to £3 million if we are right in thinking that there are about 30,000 widows. However, as the hon. Member pointed out, the number will inevitably increase as more pensioners die off and we may well be faced with a bill of anything between £6 million and £8 million for this group alone, let alone what else we might be faced with—and we do not know what other groups might put in for an increase. We could not undertake an open-ended commitment of that kind.
Although I must regret having to appear to be a Scrooge on this occasion, I do not see that there is any solution to this problem. I very much regret it, but I have to tell the hon. Member that, having looked at it I cannot recommend any concession.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Six o'clock a.m.